Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

[Zazonkers]

Commenting aye. What I don’t like is in their explanations, they make so many assumptions about weight and length and wrapping around an arm or strapping… and they use averages. Well, some are above average and some are below. Who are they to tell me what I find as comfortable in my pistol configuration? Also, the length crap. The point they miss is “anything” shorter than 16” that I don’t intend to shoulder is a pistol, they are assuming I intend to shoulder the pistol. All their measurements make an 11.5”, 12.5”, or 13.7” pistol an SBR, because of their assumptions, they don’t think at 6’2—275 I can handle a pistol that weighs that much. I have a KAK blade, and it didn’t come with a strap, so if I add a strap, did I modify the blade design? Their exampled KAK with a 10.5 barrel is now an SBR. How can they say flip sights are points? Most pistols for sale right now don’t come with any sights, so the purchaser can purchase flips, fixed, an RDS, or anything… why points for being able to select what I prefer to use to shoot my pistol accurately? I am working myself into an early grave here…

 

[gll]

Commenting aye. What I don’t like is in their explanations, they make so many assumptions about weight and length and wrapping around an arm or strapping… and they use averages. Well, some are above average and some are below. Who are they to tell me what I find as comfortable in my pistol configuration? Also, the length crap. The point they miss is “anything” shorter than 16” that I don’t intend to shoulder is a pistol, they are assuming I intend to shoulder the pistol. All their measurements make an 11.5”, 12.5”, or 13.7” pistol an SBR, because of their assumptions, they don’t think at 6’2—275 I can handle a pistol that weighs that much. I have a KAK blade, and it didn’t come with a strap, so if I add a strap, did I modify the blade design? Their exampled KAK with a 10.5 barrel is now an SBR. How can they say flip sights are points? Most pistols for sale right now don’t come with any sights, so the purchaser can purchase flips, fixed, an RDS, or anything… why points for being able to select what I prefer to use to shoot my pistol accurately? I am working myself into an early grave here…

You are right that any AR with much over a 10.5" barrel is an SBR by this rule, because of the 26" max length for a pistol, but the minimum length for a rifle is already 26", so, pistol < 26", rifle > 26". With the minimum rifle barrel length being 16" already, any barrel > 10.5" or < 16" makes an SBR.

They are creating a new class of firearm, between pistol (<12", <64oz) and SBR (>26" OA, <16" barrel) called braced pistol (>12", <26", >64oz, <120oz)... unless it is an SBR anyway, by features or caprice...

It's creating that new class, the imprecision of it's features, and the general capriciousness of the rule that may destroy it in court, eventually..., but I do expect the rule will be implemented, despite our reasoned comments.

I'm just trying to figure out what to do to comply, or not...

Your question as to whether a KAK Blade can be made compliant by addition of a strap is a good one... I've never seen a Blade sold with a strap.

 

[oldag]

You are right that any AR with much over a 10.5" barrel is an SBR by this rule, because of the 26" max length for a pistol, but the minimum length for a rifle is already 26", so, pistol < 26", rifle > 26". With the minimum rifle barrel length being 16" already, any barrel > 10.5" or < 16" makes an SBR.

They are creating a new class of firearm, between pistol (<12", <64oz) and SBR (>26" OA, <16" barrel) called braced pistol (>12", <26", >64oz, <120oz)... unless it is an SBR anyway, by features or caprice...

It's creating that new class, the imprecision of it's features, and the general capriciousness of the rule that may destroy it in court, eventually..., but I do expect the rule will be implemented, despite our reasoned comments.

I'm just trying to figure out what to do to comply, or not...

Your question as to whether a KAK Blade can be made compliant by addition of a strap is a good one... I've never seen a Blade sold with a strap.

I was thinking about adding a strap if it comes to it.

The SIg brace would seem to score a 0. However, the rear surface area is so vague it could trip up anything.

 

[Zazonkers]

You are right that any AR with much over a 10.5" barrel is an SBR by this rule, because of the 26" max length for a pistol, but the minimum length for a rifle is already 26", so, pistol < 26", rifle > 26". With the minimum rifle barrel length being 16" already, any barrel > 10.5" or < 16" makes an SBR.

They are creating a new class of firearm, between pistol (<12", <64oz) and SBR (>26" OA, <16" barrel) called braced pistol (>12", <26", >64oz, <120oz)... unless it is an SBR anyway, by features or caprice...

It's creating that new class, the imprecision of it's features, and the general capriciousness of the rule that may destroy it in court, eventually..., but I do expect the rule will be implemented, despite our reasoned comments.

I'm just trying to figure out what to do to comply, or not...

Your question as to whether a KAK Blade can be made compliant by addition of a strap is a good one... I've never seen a Blade sold with a strap.

There are too many things in here that don’t make sense and when quantified should null and void this. Thanks for length clarifying to me, I get it, but don’t think it needs to be regulated. Key to me is facts and stats, how many of these “pistols” are really being used to commit crimes? It’s the same old story… a crime was committed, it was a pistol braced firearm, lets control them all. We already know ARs are used in less than 3% of firearm incidents, so why keep going after them? It’s all too emotional and not rational on either side. It’s just when you add facts and stats, their side of the argument fades too quickly. Who made up these points, and did they really get a firearms enthusiast or professional in on the conversation? Idiotic… the part that kills me is they mention the affects that three manufacturers will lose their businesses completely, because of regulation that truly doesn’t quantify being regulated, nope… not okay. Sorry veteran owned small business, our emotions of your tool for protecting you family and property has features that trigger me, so you have to lose your livelihood. Seriously?!?! Another big problem is their “one handed hold” criteria for a pistol. Okay, but nearly all “solid” pistol grips require two hands. This doesn’t have the same ergonomics of a pistol, this is an AR pistol. They mention mounting points for slings being an indicator for shouldering. Nope it’s and indicator that this type of pistol has different weight, balance, and ergonomics and is more comfortable for the shooter to sling vice holster. If your going to make a new classification, make a new classification. Make the definitions fit the item, not the item to the standing definition. To change these definitions legally, not just what they’re looking for, doesn’t this all have to be voted in Congress?
Biggest thing has already been mentioned about “common use.” Their legal definitions state 3,000,000 means common use and their stats are low estimate at 3,000,000 and high at 7,000,000. They already can’t argue that this isn’t in common use, especially, when those numbers are usually low (did I mention I’m a stats guy?).

 

[gll]

There are too many things in here that don’t make sense and when quantified should null and void this. Thanks for length clarifying to me, I get it, but don’t think it needs to be regulated. Key to me is facts and stats, how many of these “pistols” are really being used to commit crimes? It’s the same old story… a crime was committed, it was a pistol braced firearm, lets control them all. We already know ARs are used in less than 3% of firearm incidents, so why keep going after them? It’s all too emotional and not rational on either side. It’s just when you add facts and stats, their side of the argument fades too quickly. Who made up these points, and did they really get a firearms enthusiast or professional in on the conversation? Idiotic… the part that kills me is they mention the affects that three manufacturers will lose their businesses completely, because of regulation that truly doesn’t quantify being regulated, nope… not okay. Sorry veteran owned small business, our emotions of your tool for protecting you family and property has features that trigger me, so you have to lose your livelihood. Seriously?!?! Another big problem is their “one handed hold” criteria for a pistol. Okay, but nearly all “solid” pistol grips require two hands. This doesn’t have the same ergonomics of a pistol, this is an AR pistol. They mention mounting points for slings being an indicator for shouldering. Nope it’s and indicator that this type of pistol has different weight, balance, and ergonomics and is more comfortable for the shooter to sling vice holster. If your going to make a new classification, make a new classification. Make the definitions fit the item, not the item to the standing definition. To change these definitions legally, not just what they’re looking for, doesn’t this all have to be voted in Congress?
Biggest thing has already been mentioned about “common use.” Their legal definitions state 3,000,000 means common use and their stats are low estimate at 3,000,000 and high at 7,000,000. They already can’t argue that this isn’t in common use, especially, when those numbers are usually low (did I mention I’m a stats guy?).

Of course, I agree with you totally, but probability is that this rule will be implemented, either as is, or substantially so. Yes, we should all rail against it! But, our best hope is that it doesn't stand up in court (that is a long road), or that the next congress acts to remove SBR's from the NFA (unlikely).

Meantime, we are going to have to figure out how we will live with this rule... I own 5 affected pistols, SBR them, barrel them to 16", KAK brace replacements, add straps, remove rifle sights, remove other accessories..., or just not comply; some choices may be better than others, more ATF proof, cheaper, or easier...

I'm still trying to just understand the rule in application.

 

[Zazonkers]

And, by the way, I might add the teminology, that they are regulating law abiding citizens who can’t even decipher what and how you’re regulating it to stay law abiding citizens. Still idiotic…

 

[gll]

 

[gll]

I suspect and think, if a person were to study the firearms used in many various criminal activities, that the supposed firearms that the ATF wants to further regulate, and redefine for their own purposes, that they say are used by criminals, that it would find they are totally incorrect in their assertions.

By using such proclamations, they hope to gain support from the uninformed about guns. SBR's need to be regulated further. Redefining pistols that use a brace as SBR, as being used by criminals because it skirts the laws defining a true SBR. Hogwash.

Criminals using guns in illegal or criminal activities are not following the laws in the first place. How many criminals, or those prohibited by current gun laws, are complying in the first place? None. How many of those are applying for tax stamps and registering those firearms? Again, none.

In a nutshell, it has little to no effect on criminals, but surely further restricts law-abiding gun owners trying to stay law abiding gun owners, or it with the stroke of a pen, makes any law-abiding gun owner a criminal simply if they refuse to comply with the new regulations.

ATF could probably get away with clarifying what an SBR is... If there is something in this rule that may run them afoul, it's that this rule is creating a new class of firearm (Braced Pistols), never regulated under law before (law being something Congress passes).

ATF, apparently wanting to eliminate braced pistols (even though they OK'ed them in the past) should have just declared them ALL SBR's... but, either way, by allowing the proliferation of braced pistols they are now "in common use", whether braced pistol or SBR (what difference, at this point, does it make), without reversing Heller, I don't see how the NFA regulation of SBR's can stand SCOTUS scrutiny. Though this rule may become the vehicle for getting an SBR case to SCOTUS, that will take years..., meantime, what to do?

 

[benenglish]

getting an SBR case to SCOTUS, that will take years..., meantime, what to do?

Probably the same thing so many bumpstock owners did...

 

[Zazonkers]

Probably the same thing so many bumpstock owners did...

Sad part, my father is a pro 2A guy, and after showing him versions of pistols, versions of SBRs, and the differences of the braces they are speaking of, he threw up his hands in frustration just from me explaining to him and walked away. That’s what I fear other pro 2A non-pistol-enthusiasts may do, and that makes me sad.

 

[Rhino]

Is a “buffer tube extension” with no blade or brace illegal???

 

[gll]

Is a “buffer tube extension” with no blade or brace illegal???

Just my interpretation, as long as the OA length is less than 26", weighs more than 64oz, it passes through Section 1 and 2, and could only fail in Section 3 Peripheral Accessories...

...or due to ATF's capricious, it is an attempt to circumvent NFA.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Sad part, my father is a pro 2A guy, and after showing him versions of pistols, versions of SBRs, and the differences of the braces they are speaking of, he threw up his hands in frustration just from me explaining to him and walked away. That’s what I fear other pro 2A non-pistol-enthusiasts may do, and that makes me sad.

I have seen this on other gun forums too. Some say, if it functions the same as an SBR, then it should be registered like an SBR. I have to explain it to them, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

 

[gll]

I have seen this on other gun forums too. Some say, if it functions the same as an SBR, then it should be registered like an SBR. I have to explain it to them, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

I have a neighbor who is only interested in long range shooting, despises all things semi-auto and especially AR... Once bought one, didn't like it, sold it. Now, if it was silencers on the block, he'd be all over me to oppose the ban! On this, the best I will ever get from him is, well, you can SBR it... That's only fair to him, because he had to register his silencers.

 

[Bozz10mm]

This is not looking good. We are 4 days in and there appears to be only 404 comments on the ATF site. Reading through them, it looks like a lot of comments are not even on topic. A lot of them only disparage the ATF, some have profanity, some are duplicates, and a couple of good ones. You can read them here:

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

 

[Bozz10mm]

Okay, so it looks like they have actually received over 36,000 comments, but only 400 and something have been posted.

 

[oldag]

One made a good comment on this affecting the disabled. I should have included that aspect.

Good PC hot button.

 

[oldag]

This is not looking good. We are 4 days in and there appears to be only 404 comments on the ATF site. Reading through them, it looks like a lot of comments are not even on topic. A lot of them only disparage the ATF, some have profanity, some are duplicates, and a couple of good ones. You can read them here:

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

60k comments received. Only 2700 posted.

Need to get more comments in the system.

 

[Axxe55]

This is not looking good. We are 4 days in and there appears to be only 404 comments on the ATF site. Reading through them, it looks like a lot of comments are not even on topic. A lot of them only disparage the ATF, some have profanity, some are duplicates, and a couple of good ones. You can read them here:

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Those disparaging the ATF, or using profanity, or just making hateful comments because they are unhappy, are doing us no service at all. They are, if anything hurting us more than helping.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Submitted an on point comment

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk