U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- With pistol braces in the news, I decided to build a new AR pistol. I used a Liberty Bell Firearms lower receiver, a random .300BLK upper receiver I had lying around the house, and an SB Tactical pistol brace.
I wondered what would make my pistol a short-barreled rifle (SBR). I decided to look through all the ATF documentation I have and determine what isn’t allowed. After spending hours looking over the documents, I am now more confused than ever. I will not reveal the companies involved because I don’t know their current relationship with the ATF. All information comes from the documentation that AmmoLand was able to acquire from our sources within the ATF.
It is apparent that the ATF doesn’t have any set standards when it comes to pistol braces.
More often than not, what determines what is and isn’t a brace is what reviewer in the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) gets assigned to your product. This reason is why the Department of Justice (DOJ) told the ATF’s industry side not to take any action on pistol braces.
FATD has told several companies that the ATF would consider its brace a stock unless they included a Nylon strap. At the same time, another company submitted a very similar brace that did not have a Nylon strap in the design. Another FATD reviewer determined that the second brace was not a stock even though it didn’t have a Nylon strap.
FATD rejected another pistol brace because of a raised ridge design on the back of the brace. The reviewer determined the raised ridges were more than a design feature. The reviewer thought that the ridges could help the shooter shoulder the pistol by adding “grip.” Since the ruling, multiple companies have used designs on the back of the pistol braces, and the ATF gave them the green light even though the previous company had to change their plan to make the back of its brace smooth.
In internal meetings, the ATF discussed whether a company showing a pistol shouldered in pictures and videos would reclassify the gun with a brace to an SBR. If a user shouldered the firearm, it is still a pistol, but if a company representative did the same thing, it would magically become an SBR. If someone in a company misspeaks and calls the gun a rifle or carbine, it would automatically become an SBR. If the ATF can “read between the lines” and determine you are marketing a pistol with a brace as a rifle, they can make it an SBR.
Another reason FATD decided a pistol brace is really a stock is because of surface area that exceeds what is allowed. It seems like this would be an easy thing to avoid, but the ATF doesn’t appear to have a standard. Once again, it depends on what reviewer you are assigned. Some pistol braces have been rejected because of excessive surface area, while the ATF approves other braces with bigger surface areas.
FATD has also rejected pistol braces because the manufacture used hard plastic. The ATF informed the manufacture that the only material allowed is flexible rubber. Another reviewer approved a brace that used the same hard plastic as stocks.
We don’t know if a specific number of characteristics make FATD determine a pistol brace is a stock. Does it have to be made of hard plastic with a particular surface area, or is it just up to the reviewer? The ATF doesn’t seem to know either.
Do I have a pistol with a brace, or do I have an SBR?
Outside getting rid of the unconstitutional NFA, I think the only way for the ATF to fix the problem with pistol brace classifications is to remove SBRs from the registry. So, in the end, I can’t say what is a pistol with a brace and what is an SBR. Even if I could figure out what is what, the ATF could change the definition of a pistol with a brace tomorrow, and we could all have Any Other Weapons (AOWs).
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
― Ayn Rand
Exactly. The government has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms or any weapons which citizens choose to employ to defend their lives, liberty and property.
Period. Unless the 2nd amendment is abolished or amended, all gun laws are unconstitutional and without any legal power.
You have the firearm you chose to make. Who cares what some chump who works at an unconstitutional government agency thinks? An agency which incidentally exists for the sole purpose of infringing on your right to keep and bear arms, and to interfere with your choice of and access to arms. Abolish the ATF and the NFA and the GCA and the Hughes Amendment and all FOID cards and all CCW permits. Americans don’t need permission slips to buy, build, own, carry or use firearms. SCOTUS needs to start respecting the 2nd and issuing decisions to strike down all the… Read more »
This,as it is not a Constitutionally authorized agency.
That said beyond time to rescind the NFA and defund the ATF
John
Thank you for the work you do on behalf of Americans 2 nd. amendment rights.
The tyranny of bureaucracy. Death by a thousand(s) minions. And none of them answerable to the people.
There is nothing worse than trying to deal with regulators who have no measurable standards. And I agree that if the 1934 NFA ever had a Constitutional purpose, it has long since outlived it. SBSs and SBRs are not the guns of choice in the bloody homicide records in Baltimore, Chicago, etc.
And this is exactly how societies lose the rule of law.
First, it is made subjective. The ‘law’ doesn’t apply rationally and equally, but is only some appointed burrocrat’s opinion. And like all opinions, it changes with the burrocrat’s whim.
Thus, the law eventually loses all value in the sheeple’s eye’s, so they will someday submit to a dictator just because they blame the corrupted ‘legal’ system for their own failure to keep criminals out of running the system, since they’re way too busy playing videogames.
Good piece, John, but let’s add one more unknown variable: If the PSB exceeds a “pull length” (which is not a pull length, because it is not a stock) of 13.5″, ATF may consider it a stock, and what it is attached to, an SBR. Although the ATF has attempted to prosecute at least one person for this, the 13.5″ limitation is published nowhere, except perhaps memos to manufacturers. Does that clear things up? (Not.)
I have subscribed to this forum for a long while, some very good and enlightening articles. This being one. The NFA, GCA, Hughes amendment all unconstitutional infringements. Why do the NRA go along with these infringements? Worse more recently, actually promoting “red flag” laws. Not to mention instigating the bump stock ban! Why are all the unconstitutional agencies, unelected bureaucrats creating laws by fiat through regulations “allowed” to continue their rule? Why do WE not do anything other than grumble and complain, “write to our reps” we are told, nothing happens EVEN in a red state (TN) with staunch 2A… Read more »