Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

[Byrd666]

Is there any difference between the blade type, and the ones that strap to your arm?

Bureaucratic classification

 

[gll]

Is there any difference between the blade type, and the ones that strap to your arm?

Yes, and no... the Shockwave Blade can be used with a strap, but doesn't come with it, similarly to other blade/"fin" types I have seen. By these ATF criteria, a strap on a blade saves it 2 points.

The blades have less butt area, than the split "cuff" types and I guess that makes them less shoulderable for some people, but I actually like the solid feel of the blade over the floppy sba3 types. Seeing this coming, I bought blades on sale a couple months ago to replace my sba3's, but this whole deal sucks.

It really looks like a blade, or nothing... by these criteria.

 

[Coiled]

It must be sad to be so afraid of the LAW ABIDING citizens of this countrt that have guns, that you look for anything to try and control those guns.

I hope you don't mind agree with my small EDIT.

 

[Bozz10mm]

It really looks like a blade, or nothing... by these criteria.

I think you could get by with a blade if it has an arm strap or if it is non adjustable for length. But you can't have a blade with no arm strap and adjustable attachment,apparently.

 

[Axxe55]

I hope you don't mind agree with my small EDIT.

Not at all. Thank you.

 

[gll]

A KAK blade fully extended yields a LOP of 12". An AR with a KAK blade, a birdcage FH, and a 10.5" barrel measures 28"... even without the birdcage, it will measure 26.5".

Under these criteria, I don't see how a 10.5" barreled AR pistol, with a brace, can meet the max length restriction.

A 10.5" pistol with a bird cage and a KAK Blade (it already fails on length), if it came with an A2 front sight (and GB) and is flat top, and a fixed rear sight was mounted (a rifle sight), even if it passed on length, I gather it would still need a strap on the KAK blade, or the rifle sight replaced with a reflex sight, to pass on features.

 

[Bozz10mm]

A KAK blade fully extended yields a LOP of 12". An AR with a KAK blade, a birdcage FH, and a 10.5" barrel measures 28"... even without the birdcage, it will measure 26.5".

Under these criteria, I don't see how a 10.5" barreled AR pistol, with a brace, can meet the max length restriction.

I believe the overall length measurements are made without the brace installed and length of pull is measured with it installed and extended to it's full length. My 10.5 measures just under 26" without the brace and 13" LOP with it. Cutting it pretty close. I will have to remove the MBUS sights and angled hand stop for it to even come close to not being classified as an SBR.

 

[gll]

I believe the overall length measurements are made without the brace installed and length of pull is measured with it installed and extended to it's full length. My 10.5 measures just under 26" without the brace and 13" LOP with it. Cutting it pretty close. I will have to remove the MBUS sights and angled hand stop for it to even come close to not being SBRed.

OK, a 10.5" barreled AR, with a KAK buffer tube and a 1.75" mil-spec birdcage will probably still be .25" too long.

Maybe the flash hider doesn't count either?

I would think a 10.5", 5.56NATO, AR pistol is the most popular braced pistol...

If this rule is implemented, there may be a run on barrels, as it seems the easiest, and cheapest, way to gain compliance would be to replace all pistol barrels with 16" rifle barrels.

 

[Bozz10mm]

OK, a 10.5" barreled AR, with a KAK buffer tube and a 1.75" mil-spec birdcage will probably still be .25" too long.

Maybe the flash hider doesn't count either?

I would think a 10.5", 5.56NATO, AR pistol is the most popular braced pistol...

If this rule is implemented, there may be a run on barrels, as it seems the easiest, and cheapest, way to gain compliance would be to replace all pistol barrels with 16" rifle barrels.

You are correct. I just measured my 10.5" again, this time without the brace and it comes in at 26¼". Looks like we're screwed. At least my 7.5" 300 BO should be within the length limitations.

Can't get past the SBA3 cuffed brace that they claim does not wrap around the arm. 2 points for that.

Incorporates shoulder stock design = 1 point

Material added to increase surface area for shouldering = 3 points

Adjustable telescoping attachment = 2 points

8 points = SBR

 

[toddnjoyce]

To a degree, if 10m+ firearms become SBRs overnight, that kind of counters ATF’s argument that SBRs “considered unusual’.

The second ATF argument is their requirement “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes”. I’d like to see data on the number of SBRs or AR pistols used for criminal purposes relative to other firearms, such as a pistol. I doubt that claim is likely to be supportable, either.

Also, Table 2, Summary of Affected Populations, Costs, and Benefits only lists 1.4M owners who have purchased pistols with a brace. That’s an unusually low number in my opinion of the size of affected population because it conveniently side-steps those who purchase the accessory or kit and assemble their own.

Finally, it appears ATF suggests most will convert to a rifle, which has a much lower cost impact to the manufacturer and actively ignores admitted costs of at least $433M for owners that want to keep their pistol a pistol, and they’re using FFL surrendered bump stock data to generate impact data for FFLs.

Unfortunately, ATF will get away with this rule because they intend manufacturers are the target audience and forego the whole personal assembly audience. Combined with redefining what a receiver is, it appears their tactic is going to be much like bump stocks: regulate the accessory OEMs out of a profitable business model.

 

[gll]

You are correct. I just measured my 10.5" again, this time without the brace and it comes in at 26¼". Looks like we're screwed. At least my 7.5" 300 BO should be within the length limitations.

Can't get past the SBA3 cuffed brace that they claim does not wrap around the arm. 2 points for that.

Incorporates shoulder stock design = 1 point

Material added to increase surface area for shouldering = 3 points

Adjustable telescoping attachment = 2 points

8 points = SBR

Since a rifle barrel has to be 16" minimum, but doesn't include the flash hider, unless it is pinned and welded, maybe this rule's length doesn't include the FH either... in which case, a 10.5" barrel would be about the max length for an AR pistol.

 

[Axxe55]

To a degree, if 10m+ firearms become SBRs overnight, that kind of counters ATF’s argument that SBRs “considered unusual’.

The second ATF argument is their requirement “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes”. I’d like to see data on the number of SBRs or AR pistols used for criminal purposes relative to other firearms, such as a pistol. I doubt that claim is likely to be supportable, either.

Also, Table 2, Summary of Affected Populations, Costs, and Benefits only lists 1.4M owners who have purchased pistols with a brace. That’s an unusually low number in my opinion of the size of affected population because it conveniently side-steps those who purchase the accessory or kit and assemble their own.

Finally, it appears ATF suggests most will convert to a rifle, which has a much lower cost impact to the manufacturer and actively ignores admitted costs of at least $433M for owners that want to keep their pistol a pistol, and they’re using FFL surrendered bump stock data to generate impact data for FFLs.

Unfortunately, ATF will get away with this rule because they intend manufacturers are the target audience and forego the whole personal assembly audience. Combined with redefining what a receiver is, it appears their tactic is going to be much like bump stocks: regulate the accessory OEMs out of a profitable business model.

10 million + firearms would be huge argument against them being "unusual" weapons for sure.

That data will never be generated I suspect. Simply because I believe that data would disprove that theory of SBR's being used in criminal activities. Quite possibly even the FBI's own data of the usage and types of firearms in criminal activities would counter that claim by the ATF.

 

[V-Tach]

The only thing keeping me from going ahead and doing a Form 1 on mine (and beating the rush if there is one) is they may wave the $200.00 Tax.............

 

[gll]

By limiting the length of a pistol, this rule effectively establishes a maximum length for pistol barrels, though that length is variable depending on the receiver type.

To my knowledge, there has never been a maximum length for pistol barrels in federal law before...

This rule would seem to enact new law, by establishing a new class of weapon, 'braced pistols', with rules different and separate from those established by law for the common weapons classes, rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and is beyond the scope of ATF authority.

 

[grumper]

Caetano v mASSachusetts SCOTUS case established 200,000 as the magick threshold for whether arms were in common use or not.

By ATF's own admission the number of braced pistols far exceeds that. By 7x at least.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Since a rifle barrel has to be 16" minimum, but doesn't include the flash hider, unless it is pinned and welded, maybe this rule's length doesn't include the FH either... in which case, a 10.5" barrel would be about the max length for an AR pistol.

I certainly hope you are right about the flash hider. Otherwise.....that could mean an AR pistol with a 10.5" barrel is already an SBR without a brace or stock. I don't know, it's kinda confusing.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Caetano v mASSachusetts SCOTUS case established 200,000 as the magick threshold for whether arms were in common use or not.

By ATF's own admission the number of braced pistols far exceeds that. By 7x at least.

That opinion also discusses that unusual is not synonymous with dangerous. Unless there’s some really strong manufacturer opposition, I think this proposed rule is going to be adopted and will have to be fought in the courts.

Separately, there’s a wide array of potential cases developing that all claim the same things…administrative execution of Congress’s laws is creeping beyond the scope of what government is, by law, allowed to do even though the agencies are generally given broad latitude when comes to implementation.

 

[gll]

I certainly hope you are right about the flash hider. Otherwise.....that could mean an AR pistol with a 10.5" barrel is already an SBR without a brace or stock. I don't know, it's kinda confusing.

He doesn't seem to know either, but he comes up with the same questions...

 

[benenglish]

I'm looking at the top of the worksheet, specifically the prerequisites.

Suppose I assemble a firearm that has a brace on the back but weighs less than 64 ounces. Does that mean I'm completely unaffected by all this?

For example, there are shoulder stocks that turn a Glock into an SBR. At the same time, the form seems to say that how the item is marketed determines whether it's a brace or a stock.

It seems to me it would be trivial to modify the design of many pistol shoulder stocks to include a forearm-conforming curve on the back. If the device were then marketed as a "brace" instead of a stock, would that set-up be good to go in a non-NFA sense?

It seems like this worksheet opens the door to creating a whole new class of braced pistols that can be shouldered and they would no longer be considered SBRs because they're too light.

I gotta be missing something. What am I missing?

My general approach at this moment is that I see everybody concentrating on AR-pattern firearms but I'm trying to figure out if anything in all this has consequences elsewhere. I'm beginning to think the ATF may have to deal with a pile of unintended consequences.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…I'm beginning to think the ATF may have to deal with a pile of unintended consequences.

I think you’re spot-on.