Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Negates all previous letters.

 

 

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

 

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”
The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use
of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s
aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped
pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style
pistol.
These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable
support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a
firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms
Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed.
When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under
16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.
The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16
inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).
Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that
a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA
“firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of
less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a
“short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”
In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as
well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer
noted that
The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the
AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also
performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce
bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace
onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the
weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to
dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and
recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without
compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or
her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for
additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with
additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped
to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from
the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device -2-
is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification
ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the
stated intent.
ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while
shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be
attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous
inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the
NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing
brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled
barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning.
“Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New
College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has
previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel
ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling
95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a
weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although
otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an
“any other weapon.”
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.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol
(having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18
inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting
firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms
and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.
Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok...if you shoulder the pistol, it's suddenly an sbr. If you don't it remains a pistol. So....does possessing working elbows which allow you to shoulder the gun equal constructive intent?

I agree with you on people trying to circumvent the law, but think about this for a second:  When they bought the firearm they did the whole 4473 thing.  Now, to simply add a stock, they need fingerpr

Now this brings up the question did everyone that took pics/vids of themselves using it as a shoulder stock now self indicted felons?   Aint ex post facto a bitch

Posted Images

Dumbass idiots, and I am talking about all of those writing ad infintum to the ATF as well as the ATF itself. What did you think was going to happen when the ATF receives and has to answer every letter asking the same dumbassed question? Going to be a lot of pissed off brace owners out there, who specifically bought them to get around the NFA, for those who pushed the limits...hope you are happy.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully SigArms will go after them for changing their "ruling" and causing huge losses in revenue.

To do so would force Sig to acknowledge in a court of law that their real intention in selling the device was to help tens of thousands of Americans violate the NFA. They marketed as an arm brace, and the ruling from the ATF still allows that. Sig is screwed, unless they want to challenge the NFA itself. In the current political climate, the NFA is not going to be overturned anytime soon.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully SigArms will go after them for changing their "ruling" and causing huge losses in revenue.

To do so would force Sig to acknowledge in a court of law that their real intention in selling the device was to help tens of thousands of Americans violate the NFA. They marketed as an arm brace, and the ruling from the ATF still allows that. Sig is screwed, unless they want to challenge the NFA itself. In the current political climate, the NFA is not going to be overturned anytime soon.

 

 

This exactly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumbass idiots, and I am talking about all of those writing ad infintum to the ATF as well as the ATF itself. What did you think was going to happen when the ATF receives and has to answer every letter asking the same dumbassed question? Going to be a lot of pissed off brace owners out there, who specifically bought them to get around the NFA, for those who pushed the limits...hope you are happy.

 

Well that depends, did they really send the letters or is it more BS from the BATFE. Gotta consider the source.

 

 

well...when you intend to cheat.....dont be surprised when you get caught

 

Whom exactly is being cheated?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sig braces with a buffer tube were selling for just under 200.00 

 

were people just so impatient they wouldn't spend the same 200.00 on a tax stamp, and have any stock they wanted?

 

People only got these to try to circumvent NFA laws........thats what I meant by cheating

 

 

This....exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sig braces with a buffer tube were selling for just under 200.00 

 

were people just so impatient they wouldn't spend the same 200.00 on a tax stamp, and have any stock they wanted?

 

People only got these to try to circumvent NFA laws........thats what I meant by cheating

I agree with you on people trying to circumvent the law, but think about this for a second:  When they bought the firearm they did the whole 4473 thing.  Now, to simply add a stock, they need fingerprints, a signature from the top cop of the land, pictures, $200 more bucks, and to wait a freaking year, engrave the gun if you get permission, and then never travel out of state with it again.  It's a pain in the rear and a major deterrent to even owning an NFA weapon.  What probably needs to happen is instead of writing to ATF, people need to write to their congressmen and senators and ask them to please seriously look at rewriting that law to exclude short barreled rifles and shotguns because it makes  no sense to classify such items as NFA weapons.  Adding a stock to a pistol doesn't change the pistol in any way that makes it more lethal.  It still works the same way and does the same thing when you pull the trigger.  If it's about conceal ability, then make a conceal carry permit a requirement for SBR and SBS's and be done with it.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sig braces with a buffer tube were selling for just under 200.00 

 

were people just so impatient they wouldn't spend the same 200.00 on a tax stamp, and have any stock they wanted?

 

People only got these to try to circumvent NFA laws........thats what I meant by cheating

The $200 was never the goddamn point, as you well fucking know.

 

The bullshit registration IS the goddamn point!!!

 

Getting around unconstitutional laws is justified. 

 

So on this point you and I will disagree completely. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sig braces with a buffer tube were selling for just under 200.00 

 

were people just so impatient they wouldn't spend the same 200.00 on a tax stamp, and have any stock they wanted?

 

People only got these to try to circumvent NFA laws........thats what I meant by cheating

The $200 was never the goddamn point, as you well fucking know.

 

The bullshit registration IS the goddamn point!!!

 

Getting around unconstitutional laws is justified. 

 

So on this point you and I will disagree completely. 

 

I dont think we disagree

 

I understand the point ....and I may have even got a sig brace, but I expected it to work out in the end just as it has

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now wondering if this was a BATFE set up from the get go and now those non august gentlemen are laughing their liberal commie heads off on how it all came together ... with us as the suckers? Because we are?

 

Yep. Quite possible. Probable actually. Never underestimate the enemy.

 

Now also wondering, (dangerous thing for me tonight) that we may expect all sorts of lame duck BS including DD rulings on Saiga 12s, 20s, and 410s? Would THAT be a stretch? Just me. HB of CJ (old coot)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the ruling convolutes an already tenuous position that the ATF stands on from a legal standpoint. The ATF can prosecute if you have a pistol upper in your safe without a pistol lower on intent to build. By the ATF's own logic, then theoretically they could argue that just having the brace on the pistol could be construed as "intent to reconfigure (build)" depending on how the user decides to fire it. It would be interesting for them to have to defend the position legally.

 

But then again, convoluted and tenuous describes nearly every anti-gun ruling and legislation out there. We have had two "rulings" since the first of year. I expect more, and they are all going to suck.

Edited by Spacehog
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...