ATF Policy on "handgun" stabilizing braces.

[Salty1]

From reading the letter sent out today by the ATF (see below) it appears that if one utilizes the brace from the shoulder then it constitutes a SBR and therefore would fall under NFA guidelines.


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.

[jayinsat]

It seems to me that people need to quit writing letters and asking so many envelope pushing questions to the NFA before they completely reverse themselves.

[stroo]

So as I read it, the brace is okay if strapped to your wrist but if pushed against your shoulder, the weapon becomes a SBR. Am I reading that right?

[CoffeeNut]

So as I read it, the brace is okay if strapped to your wrist but if pushed against your shoulder, the weapon becomes a SBR. Am I reading that right?

You're reading that correctly. Apparently strapping a gun to your arm to "brace" it is perfectly acceptable but god forbid you push it into your shoulder.

[Pawpaw]

These folks really are getting desperate, aren't they?

"It's legal to hold it this way, but if you hold that same object that way, you're a felon..."

Inept, incompetent, ridiculous ...

... and traitorous.

[The Annoyed Man]

What follows is NOT a condemnation of Sig. I like their wrist brace design. It is merely an honest observation......

In the light of BATF's ruling against Sig over their muzzle device as a "suppressor" (which is patently ridiculous....it's not even enclosed), I am not surprised that BATF issued this "guideline" regarding "shoulderable" wrist braces - an idea for which Sig was the first to push the limits. And that is exactly what they are doing.....pushing the limits. However, even though BATFs ruling against the muzzle device is ridiculous, one only had to look at it to immediately realize that all you have to do is slip some kind of tube over it and seal the ends somehow and you would have a functioning suppressor, not much different from any other kind of suppressor. There is no way in hades that Sig didn't realize this, nor is there any way in hades that any buyer of this product didn't realize it. Intellectual honesty compels this conclusion.

I had considered buying a Sig brace for an AR pistol instead of going the SBR route, exactly because it is designed to look (and function, if it is held the "wrong" way) like a shoulder stock. Why? Because I agree that the NFA is a steaming pile of poo, and none of this should be regulated. If I can find a way to legally circumvent an NFA restriction, I'll happily take it. Sig can claim all day long that they never intended it to be used that way, but let's be honest, there isn't anybody who bought one, or who has been thinking of buying one, who didn't look at it as a way to circumvent BATF limitations on SBRs, myself included.

I had this very same discussion when my son first showed me one of these braces back when they first came out. The shop he works in is a Sig dealer, and they carry Sig rifles as well as pistols. He showed me one of the Sig AR pistols with that stock on it, and the first words out of my mouth were "Is that thing legal?" It should be legal without a tax stamp. ALL NFA items should be legal without a tax stamp. A short-barreled Browning M2 machine gun with a suppressor won't kill you any deader than Grandpa's old .30-30.....even it if does make a bigger mess. But none of that changes the fact that I know what the law says, and this brace was a way to circumvent the law......and anybody who argues different is fooling themselves. There are other ways to brace an AR pistol against your wrist, without making the brace useable as a shoulder stock.

Even if people had not written letters to BATF seeking clarification, leading to this ruling, the first BATF agent who saw one of these things on a Saturday at a gun range would probably have questioned it to his/her superiors, leading to the ruling anyway.

That's just my 2¢.

[The Annoyed Man]

Repeal the SBR category and all this nonsense just goes away.

Exactly, but I say repeal the whole darn thing.

[K.Mooneyham]

I agree that anyone could see this coming, letters bugging the ATF about it or not, it was just a matter of time. That is why I have no respect for the BATFE. I fear them, in the same way I fear terrorists, for the terrible things they could do for me. But I do not respect them.

A fix for this NFA mess is to simply amend the law and make it state that these laws only apply if said firearm is used in the commission of a felonious crime. That would probably be easier to get through than a full repeal.

[ELB]

Example umpteen on why the BATFE cannot be trusted.

Repeal the SBR category and all this nonsense just goes away.

Exactly, but I say repeal the whole darn thing.

[rbwhatever1]

""ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand...""

What if one uses two hands?

The rebel in me wants to buy the P556 so I can misuse it. It looks a tad heavy and awkward with a 30 round magazine inserted. One more 556/223 would never be a bad thing. Around $1225 delivered.

I agree with the above posts. The whole thing needs to be gone.

[The Annoyed Man]

First person charged with new brace, not even shouldering it...........in California:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/0 ... ped-ar-15/

[johncanfield]

Bureaucrats with way too much time on their hands, get rid of them and the IRS, and de-fund all of the others by 50%.