Getzapped Posted January 16, 2015 at 10:54 PM Posted January 16, 2015 at 10:54 PM 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, inRevenue 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 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 anti-personnel 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 *This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the "News" tab.
Capt_Destro Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:14 PM Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:14 PM With this most recent letter. The Intent of building a pistol with a brace no longer matters? Using it as a stock period makes a SBR? Back to a tube with a cover I suppose. Honestly I didn't care for the weight of the brace. The thordsen set up was very nice, but I'm betting it's just a matter of time before a fool submits a letter on that as well.
Davey Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:16 PM Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:16 PM Brace so much as touches your shoulder, FELON! Gunsense!
armadroid Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:25 PM Posted January 16, 2015 at 11:25 PM With this most recent letter. The Intent of building a pistol with a brace no longer matters? Using it as a stock period makes a SBR? Back to a tube with a cover I suppose. Honestly I didn't care for the weight of the brace. The thordsen set up was very nice, but I'm betting it's just a matter of time before a fool submits a letter on that as well.actually it you read it. the buffer tube was not designed to be shouldered. and using it as such would be redesigning the buffertube into a stock.
AJR Posted January 17, 2015 at 01:12 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 01:12 AM They contradict themselves all the time. There is another letter there were they answered it just the opposite.
BrowningHP Posted January 17, 2015 at 01:20 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 01:20 AM 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.” but shouldering does not change the function nor appearance of the brace, it's just being used a different way at that time... sigh
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:17 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:17 AM With this most recent letter. The Intent of building a pistol with a brace no longer matters? Using it as a stock period makes a SBR? Back to a tube with a cover I suppose. Honestly I didn't care for the weight of the brace. The thordsen set up was very nice, but I'm betting it's just a matter of time before a fool submits a letter on that as well. I believe that this . . . Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. . . . already invalidates the letter that Thordsen includes with their AR Pistol Builder's Package. Alas.
Capt_Destro Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:58 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:58 AM Cane tip also revoked?
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 17, 2015 at 04:05 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 04:05 AM Cane tip also revoked? That does seem to be the case; if you can, or even do, use an AR pistol against your shoulder, with anything that allows the buffer tube to serve as a shoulder-stock, then according to the language in that ATF letter, you have "modified its function" and thus created a situation in which the licensing for an SBR is required.
FlaviusRenatus Posted January 17, 2015 at 05:39 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 05:39 AM I do not believe this letter is legitimate. It is not on any letterhead, I think this is a fake. Flav
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 17, 2015 at 06:32 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 06:32 AM I do not believe this letter is legitimate. It is not on any letterhead, I think this is a fake. Flav It's on the BATF's official website, so you don't believe it is legitimate? Here's the direct PDF copy of from that site. I think you might want to rethink that assessment.
HeavyDuty Posted January 17, 2015 at 09:06 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 09:06 AM With this most recent letter. The Intent of building a pistol with a brace no longer matters? Using it as a stock period makes a SBR? Back to a tube with a cover I suppose. Honestly I didn't care for the weight of the brace. The thordsen set up was very nice, but I'm betting it's just a matter of time before a fool submits a letter on that as well. I believe that this . . . Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. . . . already invalidates the letter that Thordsen includes with their AR Pistol Builder's Package. Alas.How so? The Thordsen letter has nothing to do with shouldering.
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM Posted January 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM With this most recent letter. The Intent of building a pistol with a brace no longer matters? Using it as a stock period makes a SBR? Back to a tube with a cover I suppose. Honestly I didn't care for the weight of the brace. The thordsen set up was very nice, but I'm betting it's just a matter of time before a fool submits a letter on that as well. I believe that this . . . Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. . . . already invalidates the letter that Thordsen includes with their AR Pistol Builder's Package. Alas.How so? The Thordsen letter has nothing to do with shouldering. It would invalidate it if the person using the device on the back of their AR pistol used the Thordsen kit in any way that contacted the shoulder, as that would "redesign" the function of the "cheekpiece" device. I know what the letter says, having read it, and I also know what the new ATF letter is intended to do. So, what is quite likely to happen is that some law enforcement agent could be nitpicky and say that the user of one of a Thordsen device contacted their shoulder while firing the AR pistol, and thus the spirit of what the Thordsen device, and thus the letter, is attempting is to make an end run around the new prohibition. So, technically, it wouldn't immediately invalidate the letter, but it would create a situation where the user couldn't even let the "cheekpiece" contact their shoulder even momentarily, or else have "created" an SBR by doing so. It's simply idiocy, but I can just see someone getting in hot water for this, and then needing to go to court to argue the nuance of the situation and how that letter applies or is violated, blah, blah, blah.
oneshot Posted January 17, 2015 at 02:11 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 02:11 PM Dang, I'm going to have to check the bushes at the range for ATF agents every time I shoot now. *purple* Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
jagt48 Posted January 17, 2015 at 02:36 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 02:36 PM This is why we need to repeal the NFA.
Getzapped Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:00 PM Author Posted January 17, 2015 at 03:00 PM I do not believe this letter is legitimate. It is not on any letterhead, I think this is a fake. FlavIt was sent directly to my email from the ATF. It is real.
paulgl26 Posted January 17, 2015 at 05:12 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 05:12 PM Well I'll have to pay the 200$ stamp after all
VVelox Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:23 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:23 PM Speaking as some one living in Chicago, this is very depressing as this is something that made it worthwhile owning a AR pistol in the city.
paulgl26 Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:41 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:41 PM That is why I never sent my paperwork for the stamp. Maybe I'll keep it a pistol just so I can take it to work with me
BIGDEESUL Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:52 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:52 PM What a joke. What government agency issues a new letter contradicting itself every other month? Pure stupidity. The ATF needs some bipolar meds. This was already settled. I'd really like to know who the half brained idiots that keep inquiring are. Unbelievable how stupid some people are.
BIGDEESUL Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:52 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:52 PM Looks like I'll have to raise my optic and place it under the shoulder.
BIGDEESUL Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:53 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:53 PM Any rules against "undershouldering"? Wait, I'd better send an inquiry to the ATF and find out.
chislinger Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:57 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 07:57 PM If the ATF can't even figure out what the meaning of the law is someone should challenge it as being unconstitutionally vague.
richp Posted January 17, 2015 at 08:45 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 08:45 PM Hi,I'm sorry, but did anyone here really think that once ATF saw what the original interpretation allowed, they wouldn't move to tighten things up? I've been waiting for this change to happen since the first time I saw one of these at Gander Mountain. Come on, this is one of the most anti-firearm administrations we've ever seen. To think for even a minute that they would let an alternate, and totally benign, use for this device remain permissible, is wishful thinking of the highest order.And absolutely yes on the unconstitutional vagueness comment. This episode is a perfect illustration.FWIW.Rich Phillips
Tango7 Posted January 17, 2015 at 09:36 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 09:36 PM Hi,I'm sorry, but did anyone here really think that once ATF saw what the original interpretation allowed, they wouldn't move to tighten things up? I've been waiting for this change to happen since the first time I saw one of these at Gander Mountain. Come on, this is one of the most anti-firearm administrations we've ever seen. To think for even a minute that they would let an alternate, and totally benign, use for this device remain permissible, is wishful thinking of the highest order.And absolutely yes on the unconstitutional vagueness comment. This episode is a perfect illustration. FWIW.Rich PhillipsAs I've posted before: While IL Statute allows "the Fire Chief or his designee" to investigate fires, I cannot bill myself as an "Investigator" unless I have completed a certain number of courses successfully, and if I go to court my credentials can become a matter of consideration. However, at the ATF, a "firearms expert" is a title, not a description of job expertise, training, knowledge or experience, yet the Fed Courts accept the title as the same thing from someone with no training whatsoever as someone with expert knowledge of firearms design, construction and operation. As a LE investigator the procedure and methodology I use conducting my investigations is subject to the Daubert and/or Frye standards, just as the work of every other "professional" is, as well as the generic concept of the "Scientific method", that is, another individual given the same knowledge, experience, tools, evidence and data should be able to reach similar results. Except the ATF. They don't need to prove their methodology, state the methods by which they obtained their results, or show consistency from Case #1 to Case #87. They can say "this is a device that allows the firing of more than one round at a time from a firearm, therefore is meets the definition of a machine gun" and point to a shoelace and be correct within the construct of their own sterile existence. They can also modify the conditions of examination until a desired result is achieved, whether or not the defendant was operating under those same conditions or not. There are decades of reliance on Case Law and Stare Decisis, so folks looking at the facts of a case have previous decisions upon which to base their opinions and actions. I cannot present a case to a DA for Aggravated Arson if it does not meet the appropriate elements of the Statute. Except the ATF. If Examiner A tells you "It's Okay" on January 1st, there's no recourse if Examiner B suddenly decides your hi-tops are DD's on March 1st. As an Investigator I conduct an investigation, review the case and make recommendations to the DA for prosecution, using rules, codified as Statutes or Ordinances, that were constructed by the legislative branch. I can be called as a witness but the actual prosecution is conducted by an outside agency. The ATF, operating under US Code written by the Legislative Branch, also has the ability to offer interpretations of the Code that go beyond it, and bear the full force of law; they conduct the investigation and are a party involved in the active prosecution, with no separation between rulemaking, investigation and prosecution.
snooter Posted January 17, 2015 at 10:35 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 10:35 PM thank your fellow gun owner fudds who could not stop writing letters or failing to control there tongue..i do not own any of these devices but anybody north of IQ50 could have seen this coming (in fact heller keller commentd on this early on)..anyhow i blame the fudds (or the HK fan boys who are butt hurt over whatever they get butt hurt over)..who needs the alphabet boys when we have fudds
ChicagoRonin70 Posted January 17, 2015 at 11:45 PM Posted January 17, 2015 at 11:45 PM thank your fellow gun owner fudds who could not stop writing letters or failing to control there tongue..i do not own any of these devices but anybody north of IQ50 could have seen this coming (in fact heller keller commentd on this early on)..anyhow i blame the fudds (or the HK fan boys who are butt hurt over whatever they get butt hurt over)..who needs the alphabet boys when we have fudds Is this referring to the poster who goes by the handle of "Elmer Fudd"? If so, then I would submit that it's a bit overly personal and gratuitous to direct criticism at someone who isn't even taking part in this particular thread. However, if you're using "Fudd" as a generic classification of certain folks, I assume incompetent mall-ninja types, then I don't disagree.
jagt48 Posted January 18, 2015 at 12:20 AM Posted January 18, 2015 at 12:20 AM I'm pretty sure snooter was referring to the slang definition of a casual gun owner who only cares about hunting or trap shooting or something similar. They typically don't support the 2A beyond their little corner of sport shooting.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.