ATF Criminal Branch’s Confusing Evaluation of a Single CAA Industry’s Micro Roni

CAA Micro Roni Clean
ATF Criminal Branch’s Confusing Evaluation of a Single CAA Industry’s Micro Roni

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- In recently obtained documents, the ATF’s Firearms Technology Criminal Branch argues that in this particular instance a single CAA Industries Micro Roni under evaluation and equipped with an arm brace, was a short-barreled rifle (SBR). Wait, what?

It is important to stop and note that despite the ATF’s Firearms Technology Criminal Branch letter we are about to look at, no charges were ever filed related to this determination in this criminal case investigation. The ATF received the product in question back on 10/9/18.

But this single letter once more highlights the continuing confusion that is created by ATF’s refusal to have hard, measurable, standards for firearms brace devices.

Also, the reader should note the company involved is CAA Industries an Israeli company (not to be confused with CAA USA, a separate company, with no connection to the products seen in this letter) that produces a device that allows the user to insert a pistol into the accessory to increase stability. Some of the CAA Industries’ devices have braces that are attached.

In the original report (embedded below) dated February 5th, 2019, the ATF states that they received a Glock 19 Gen 4 pistol and a CAA Industries Micro Roni Stabilizer device on October 9th, 2018. According to Special Agent and investigator Nate Anderson’s product description, the manufacture made the brace out of stiff rubber material that was one inch wide by two inches long. The brace also had flexible rubber-like straps that extended downward, approximately three inches. The ATF agent noted that the brace resembled a stock and remarked that the device “fits comfortably into one’s shoulder.”

Anderson does note that CAA industries say that the “rubber flaps are designed to fit over the forearm, with the Velcro straps to provide additional security.” He does note that the product allows the user to operate a handgun with increased functionality and stability. According to the ATF document, once the user inserts the pistol into the Micro Roni Stabilizing device, it becomes a weapon itself. He claims by doing so; the user redesigned the gun to fire it from their shoulder.

Because it has a barrel less than 16 inches, the ATF considers it an SBR.

One of the ATF’s issues with the device is the pistol’s weight before the user inserts the weapon into the CAA Industries Micro Roni.

According to the ATF, pistol braces are designed to help disabled shooters manage heavy guns such as pistols based on AR15 lowers or sub guns. The ATF reasons that a pistol is light enough for a disabled shooter to fire the gun with one hand without the need for a brace.

The ATF report states: “The use of a ‘stabilizing brace’ on a standard sized semiautomatic pistol results in the redesign of the pistol to be fired from the shoulder and hence becoming an SBR. The addition of a carbine-type kit to a standard size semiautomatic pistol does not warrant the use of a ‘stabilizing brace,’ as these devices are only added to be used for no other purpose than as a shoulder stock for the pistol.”

Anderson claims that this stance is a long-held belief in the agency. He points to Revenue Ruling 61, where the ATF’s predecessor ruled that Luger and Mauser pistols with stocks were SBRs under the National Firearms Act. In that case, those pistols had stocks and not braces, but the agent is considering the stabilizing brace on the Micro Roni is a stock.

Investigator Anderson also took issue with the actual design of the brace. He claims that it is too close to a stock to be considered a brace. In the now-retracted letter recently submitted to the Federal Registry, the ATF stated that braces based on stocks would be consider shouldering devices. With the letter’s withdrawal, it isn’t clear if Anderson’s reasoning would still be valid.

The ATF also points out that CAA Industries designed the Micro Roni Stabilizing devices based on its Micro Roni carbine conversion device. The Agent notes the only difference is that one has a stock, and one has a brace. He reasons that since the company based the stabilizing device on a carbine design, it will always be a carbine.

Anderson does state that a shorter length of pull doesn’t automatically make an SBR a pistol. He does state length of pull does go into the classification of firearms. We have seen this recently and in other cases, I have recently covered.

The agent’s final objection to the CAA Industries Micro Roni Stabilizing device is that the forward portion of the accessory has a thumb rest!?

He surmises that if CAA Industries did intend the device to help the user fire a pistol with one hand, then there would be no need for the thumb rest.

Many in the gun community argue that these letters, like the one highlighted, are prime examples of the ATF not giving clear guidelines to the industry or the general public. It seems the ATF takes a holistic approach in determining what is and isn’t an SBR. It is a “we know it when we see it” stance that leaves gun owners in legal jeopardy and at the vagaries of government agents.

As of this writing, the ATF has never produced any criminal charges related to CAA Industries Micro Roni and makes no claims that it is banned.

CAA Industries was not aware of the agency having any issues with the Micro Roni or related products and appears to be another victim of ATF’s bureaucratic morass.

This is just one more confirmation that with the continued lack of logical-measurable-standards for firearms braces, even the ATF themselves can not agree on what they are looking at.


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.

John Crump

Editors Note: This article was updated 1/22/2021 to remove the word “shoulder” where it was miss applied by editors and not author John Crump.

Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Savage
Savage
30 days ago

Interesting, I have the exact same thing but it’s called a MCK from CAA, no mention of it at all. As for turning in my guns, you’ll have to obtain a search warrant, also I know all the police in my little town, the’ve already said they will not help with any such confiscation. I fact they’ve told people that should something like that happen they will give everyone a heads up so people can make their “stuff” disappear.

Laura Burgess
24 days ago
Reply to  Savage

The MCK is from CAA USA, no relation to CAA Industries or the Micro Roni. The MCK is perfectly fine and SB Tactical supplies their braces and does not supply CAA Industries with any product.

GomeznSA
GomeznSA
1 month ago

I had a thought the other day about this issue but had to stew on it for a bit. Someone needs to go after specific agents (like the one in this article) as well as atf in general for violating the ADA. After all, the origin for the brace (and subsequent copies) was SPECIFICALLY to enable a disabled veteran to be able to continue to shoot pistols. Seems to me that is still the primary reason for them, occasional ‘shouldering’ not withstanding. Yes, one ‘can’ indeed ‘shoulder’ a brace but as even atf admits that is not what it was… Read more »

John Dow
John Dow
1 month ago

Defund the ATF.

No more ruling by memo, letter, postcard, words in beach sand.

Xaun Loc
Xaun Loc
1 month ago

If you want to see just how confused the discussion of the so-called pistol braces has become, take a look in this very article, there the author clearly admits that the “brace” he is talking about is really meant to be a stock when he describes the situation: “Some of the CAA Industries’ devices have shoulder braces that are attached.”

Come on John, don’t pretend it is a “brace” when even you recognize that it is intended to be used from the shoulder.

Therottybear
Therottybear
1 month ago
Reply to  Xaun Loc

A brace isn’t a stock no matter what sort of mental gymnastics you want to use to make the claim. Also, let’s take a step back and mock the insanity of thinking that putting a pistol to your shoulder is some horrible thing to do. To perpetuate that insanity makes one a gigantic tool.

Don
Don
1 month ago

NFA ’34 gives the ATF power to enforce these fake braces. Stop lying to yourself about these being braces. They are stocks, and they will be subject to enforcement under Biden.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Don, Last time you made these comments, you said everyone should comply with the interpretation that these items are regulated under the NFA of 1934. You then went on to indicate that if the people who control Biden are successful in implementing the gun control laws on Biden’s campaign website, people should comply with those laws, including: Registering broad categories of semiautomatic rifles with the federal government under the specifics of the NFA of 1934; and Registering standard capacity magazines with the federal government under the specifics of the the NFA of 1934. When you were asked whether people should… Read more »

Don
Don
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

You did not ask a question.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Here is a question Don. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

Don
Don
1 month ago
Reply to  RoyD

Life long Republican.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Same question as before: do you believe people should comply with a complete ban of broad categories of semiautomatic rifles (e.g., AR15s and AKs)?

That is, when a law is passed banning them and requiring them to be turned-in (with or without compensation) or destroyed, do you believe people should comply with that law?

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

@JSNMGC – If they are registered, only options will be turn them in, open civil disobedience – suffering the consequences thereof, or fighting to the death. I prefer the less risky path of failing to register, to be followed by last option only if necessary. I much prefer winning political fights against tyranny. If I had a pistol, it would be a pistol, pseudo-SBR or not. From what Don has said, I believe he thinks we should comply with laws, regulations and directions. When ordered off the box cars into the mass showers – he seems to believe we should… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

That is a logical decision and makes complete sense given 19th and 20th century history.

I don’t know what Don believes regarding a law banning the possession of semiautomatic firearms, but he did indicate that people should comply with registration.

BTW, in that other thread did your really intend to say that people like me should be deported, or was that just some awkward wording?

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Oops – that comment was supposed to be directed at wil – who was going off on how us evil white people should support all black people for reasons beyond my ken. Was following train of thought regarding how black people have it so hard, when in reality they achieve so much less, with so many more opportunities and facing so much less discrimination than migrant hispanic laborers – particularly those who are here illegally. Would never call for your deportation, even if I thought you were here illegally. Our nation needs more adult-calm-rational people. Those who think through consequences… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Thanks – that’s kind of what I thought. I make grammar, spelling, and other writing errors all the time.

Don
Don
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

We need to fight such laws.

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

That is still not an answer to his question.

Knute
Knute
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

But if such laws are passed, should they be obeyed? Without question? What about if a law is passed that all people whose name starts with a “D” are to report to the hospital for medical experimentation? Should we all obey THAT law without question… “Don”?
You can see the logical fallacy in your non-argument, I’m sure.
The broader question is: AT WHAT POINT should bad laws not be blindly followed? At what point will you get off your knees and attempt to stand, Don?

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

Bravo!!!!!

Knute
Knute
1 month ago
Reply to  RoyD

Thanks, Roy.
Unfortunately, I think Don went AWOL awhile back. 🙂

RoyD
RoyD
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

Don’t worry. I am sure he will get around to answering your questions when he gets back to the site. Well, I am pretty sure.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Hello Don, I see my response from earlier today has still not been released. I’m going to guess you and I agree on a lot of things. I really don’t think it is a good idea to press individuals on what they would do under certain conditions, so I avoid asking people those type of questions. You have come on a Gun Rights discussion board and have been outspoken about what other people should do (as a group – not individuals, thank you). The general point I made earlier today was, very few people, in 2021, would criticize German citizens… Read more »

Xaun Loc
Xaun Loc
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

I hate to agree with you, but the ATF’s one major mistake in this overall debacle was that they failed to recognize what was going to happen when they approved the first brace (which was legitimate) and therefore failed to invent a rational rule to start with, such as requiring the “brace” to be affixed to the shooter’s forearm when the “pistol” was fired (which was exactly how the first brace was intended to be used).

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Xaun Loc

@Xaun Loc – For a while they followed a rule that brace was legal as long as it did not touch shooter’s shoulder. Eventually they figured out that that was absurd. How you hold something does not change its nature. Such regulations cannot even pretend to serve any purpose. If touching your shoulder made the device more lethal, allowing anyone to have it puts it out there for misuse. Could not arrest someone until they started shooting at people (which is how it should be) – they could not prosecute anyone not caught in the act of practicing in wrong… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Will – 1/22/21: “Don,there are times when some people ask you to elaborate on positions you’ve taken for you to just disregard them and move on. I think this is one of them. Take care.” Response to Will: Will, to be clear I’m not asking what Don would do as an individual – I don’t do that. He is admonishing people for concluding braced pistols are not SBRs. In the past he indicated other people should comply with further gun laws that are coming – the specifics of which have been disclosed. I did not ask him whether he would… Read more »

Don
Don
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I don’t like the NFA ’34. I abide by it. Don’t lie to yourself about the pistol braces being braces. If Biden gets the law changed we are screwed. The Republicans just screwed up the election big time. The idiot Qanon-types, Proud Boys, 3%er are the enemy of the people. It’s because of them that we will lose our gun rights.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

Don, I agree with much of what you wrote, but I’m not lying to myself. I just don’t admonish people for concluding braced pistols are not SBRs. Everyone has a line. Every modern totalitarian government has, at some point, banned firearms. I don’t subscribe to the “left/right” view of politics – I just view anarchy on one end and totalitarianism on the other, with a free civilization in the middle. On the totalitarian side, both German Nazis and Soviet Communists hauled off people by the millions to concentration camps or gulags, or just killed them outright. There are few people… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

I responded politely, logically, and briefly, but my comment is “Awaiting for approval.”

Beobear
Beobear
1 month ago
Reply to  Don

We will lose our rights because people like you refuse to stand up for themselves. Just because something is made a “law” doesn’t mean it automatically becomes just and right and must be followed. When unconstitutional laws are created it is the responsibility of citizens to disobey them. That of course comes with a price. Each person must decide if they are willing to risk paying that price.

Only when enough people stand together and refuse to comply will the power of the people be great enough to accomplish the task.

Don
Don
1 month ago
Reply to  Beobear

Are you going to volunteer to be the first one arrested and tried?

Mike Moto
Mike Moto
30 days ago
Reply to  Don

Are you admitting you willfully cower from an abusive, overreaching government?

RoyD
RoyD
30 days ago
Reply to  Mike Moto

Mike, it seems that there are people who never knew or need to refresh their knowledge of some of the thoughts of our country’s founding Fathers. They( that means you too Don) can start that process by reviewing these:

https://www.insearchofliberty.com/founding-fathers-on-freedom-liberty-and-american-exceptionalism/

Last edited 30 days ago by RoyD
Mike Moto
Mike Moto
30 days ago
Reply to  Don

Right!!! Hello, where were you decades before the Proud Boys, Q and the 3% when the Demo-Rats took our gun rights away piece by piece?

WinstonRomeo
WinstonRomeo
1 month ago

Another alphabet agency making up regulations to be prosecuted under color of law. This is patently unconstitutional. ATF/BATFE is not part of the legislative branch and is basically without oversight from Congress. Are they a branch of the DOJ? Where is their oversight and who gives them their unconstitutional orders?
According to the Biden AG there will be no new regulations.

Oldman
Oldman
1 month ago
Reply to  WinstonRomeo

Right! Obiden doesn’t say much except, “with unity we can accomplish anything” Doesn’t do much either……can’t even read a teleprompter. They will abolish the 2nd if we let them.

swmft
swmft
1 month ago

atf needs to be gone unconstitutional group of im more important than you employees hoover was the worst fbi talk about lack of respect for Constitution and rights