No More ATF Rulings (Complete, not Parts)

[kayt00]

So does this fall back to NFA standards then? If so how are braces classified, grandfathered in what sort of excrement storm does this ruling open up?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/notice-dis ... ifications

Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed.

[ELB]

So does this fall back to NFA standards then? If so how are braces classified, grandfathered in what sort of excrement storm does this ruling open up?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/notice-dis ... ifications

Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed.

It appears that notice is at least 6 months old. (ETA: I misread date on notice, it's much more recent than I originally realized).

On the face of it, it doesn't sound like it changes whatever the classification of anything that already had a final determination, but any accessory that had not already been decided would need to be submitted attached to a firearm.

[kayt00]

So essentially follow NFA rules and if you have something previously deemed a brace it is still a brace, "grandfathered in". Asking for a friend...

[kayt00]

Also how does this apply to future rulings of accessories already installed. Example, a new brace is only a brace if it is installed on a weapon dimensionally identical or a weapon of the exact make, model and configuration. A kak brace is only a brace if it is installed on a Springfield Saint Edge, but it's a stock if installed on anything else?

[kayt00]

Also how does this apply to future rulings of accessories already installed. Example, a new brace is only a brace if it is installed on a weapon dimensionally identical or a weapon of the exact make, model and configuration. A kak brace is only a brace if it is installed on a Springfield Saint Edge, but it's a stock if installed on anything else?

Or better yet, here is a sample of a brace that we manufactured installed on a pistol with a barrel length of 7.5". ATF does their due diligence and decides nope, it's a stock not a brace, oh and by the way you just built an SBR without a tax stamp, we'll be by later to arrest you have a nice day.

[ELB]

So essentially follow NFA rules and if you have something previously deemed a brace it is still a brace, "grandfathered in". Asking for a friend...

This interests me a bit, so I am doing some research:

When I read it, it doesn't say to me that previous determinations are invalid, just that in the future if you submit a picatinny rail coffee cup holder to see if it makes a firearm into an NFA item, it has to be attached to an actual firearm.

Now as I understand it. the ATF has largely held that its ruling letters apply only to the exact configuration that they evaluated, e.g. a specific accessory by make and model installed on a specific firearm by make and model.

After some apparent flipflops on arm braces, the last ATF letter that I know of was addressed to counsel for SB Tactical LLC and was dated 21 MAR 2017. The 21 MAR 2017 letter is billed as a "clarification" of their 16 JAN 2015 "Open Letter." The Open Letter (IMHO) essentially said that kan arm brace is OK as long as it is used strapped on your forearm and firing the pistol one-handed, but shouldering a pistol with an arm brace attached constituted a "redesign" and changed the pistol/arm brace into a shortbarrelled rifle.

ATF Open Letter: https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download
ATF Letter to SB Tactical: https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/upl ... 1-2017.pdf

The "clarification" noted that simply attaching an arm brace to a pistol does not make it an SBR, but any affirmative actions to reconfigure the arm brace for use as a shoulder stock -- e.g. by removing the strap or "permanently affix[ing] it to the end of a buffer tube" and then using it as a shoulder stock-- would in fact "objectively redesign" the configuration to a SBR. It further notes that merely firing an arm brace-equipped pistol from the shoulder does not necessarily convert the firearm to a SBR...as long as the arm brace has not been reconfigured to act as a shoulder brace.

Keep in mind that this letter was addressed to SB Tactical, a manufacturer of arm braces. From my understanding this could very well mean it applies at most to SBT-manufactured arm braces ONLY.

Now. In October 2018 the ATF prosecuted an Ohio man for having an unregistered SBR because he used a brace, an angled forward grip, and a flash suppressor on an AR pistol made by Sharp Bros. The brace and the angled forward grip both had letters from ATF essentially stating that they did not convert a pistol to a rifle, but he was prosecuted anyway. Interestingly the prosecution fought to keep any of the ATF approval letters from being presented as evidence. (!) The jury acquitted the man after a short deliberation.

Here are the relevant links. The links do not agree on what kind of brace was attached to the AR15 pistol, but the point is the same: they were previously approved by the ATF, but the man was prosecuted anyway.
https://www.range365.com/atf-prosecutes ... ith-brace/
https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/10/28/a ... t-be-next/

So.

I don't know what the answer to your question is. In the past the ATF ruling/approval letters on pistol braces seemed possibly to cover pistol braces in general, but perhaps only applied to SB Tactical braces. With the requirement that any firearm accessory has to be attached to a firearm for evaluation, then I wonder if the resulting approval for an accessory will apply only to the specific make and model of firearm presented, or to the type of firearm presented, or ???

For the example of a future arm brace sent in attached to an Wyndham AR15, would the resulting approval apply only to that specific type of brace with a Wyndham AF15 but not other AR 15s? or would it apply to all Wyndham AR15s but not Colt AR15s? or would it be apply to all AR15s but not AKs? Dunno.

[kayt00]

Sounds like a "utilize at your own risk" type situation to me.

[The Annoyed Man]

FWIW, this kind of ambivalence from ATF is one of the things that makes an SBR advantageous over a pistol with a brace.

[ELB]

Sounds like a "utilize at your own risk" type situation to me.

Yup.

[Jago668]

FWIW, this kind of ambivalence from ATF is one of the things that makes an SBR advantageous over a pistol with a brace.

Was the entire reason I did my sbr. People asked why do it when you can build a pistol with a brace. After this bump stock non-sense it made it even easier to point out why.