ATF Changes it's Mind About Length w/Braces

[RocketScott]

So you intend to put a second hand on the front of the pistol?

Now it's not a pistol, it's an AOW

[beckdw]

So you intend to put a second hand on the front of the pistol?

Now it's not a pistol, it's an AOW

Pretty soon we won't be able to shoot actual handguns with two hands, far too deadly. It's for the children. One hand only.

[RocketScott]

Found an older article from May of last year:

ATF Measuring OAL With Brace Folded?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/05/24/oal-brace-folded/

Is OAL measured with a stock or brace folded?
I spoke with Alex Bosco, CEO of SB Tactical and inventor of the pistol stabilizing brace, who says a firearm’s overall length is always measured with the brace (or stock) opened or extended. When Bosco received approval for his line of braces, he spoke with the heads of the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch to make sure his products complied with ATF and NFA regulations. All of SBTactical’s models have been approved and their samples were always measured with the brace extended and deployed. Remember the opinion reversal by the ATF on the use of SB Tactical Braces? In that letter, there was a specific segment about “creating a length”.

[RocketScott]

Found this letter from the ATF saying that a Magpul angled grip would be OK

https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/magpul-foregrip-not-an-aow.jpg

[Yondering]

Yet another example why people need to stop writing letters to the ATF asking for clarifications. This is what comes of it.

[Guns4Liberty]

Yet another example why people need to stop writing letters to the ATF asking for clarifications. This is what comes of it.

Actually, I think we need to keep doing it so there is documentation of how they change their minds on things the way a woman changes shoes. Eventually, it'll lead to a judge slapping their peepee and telling them to get their shit together. Then again, I don't know why I put any faith in judges anymore - they let us down just as often.

[Rottenryan]

Now wait a second....I purchase a Black Aces DTRS in January simply because it's designed around/with the NFA wording in the rule book. Not a work around....not a grey area. Simply a cut and dry design approved by the BATFE or "bat fuck" as I like to call them.
Sooooo...now as of June 25th it's reclassified?

[ViniVidivici]

I gives a fuck.

Arbitrary idiocy.

C-clamp grip FTW, yo.

[Pvanderzee]

I will continue putting VFG's on everything I feel like putting a VFG on. While I can't encourage unlawful behavior because forum rules, I recommend people do their own risk/reward evaluation and do whatever you want.

Also, am I the only one that thinks that it makes more sense, legally speaking, to measure a "pistol" without the brace? The reason a rifle is measured with stock included in the length is because a stock is necessary for a firearm to be a rifle in the first place, so the stock is a critical component of the firearm. If it is not shoulder-fired, it is not a rifle. A pistol, on the other hand, does not require a brace to be a pistol. ATF has long been measuring rifles using critical components (stocks) and permanently attached devices (pinned/welded muzzle devices). Yes, it's all stupid and arbitrary. Yes, I know how we all feel about the NFA. Yes, taxation is theft. But if you put a gun to my, told me there HAD to be a method to measure pistols, and asked me which method of measurement made more sense, it would be this most recent one.

Now if they could just leave it the fuck alone for like thirty seconds and let the public and the market adjust, we could all get on with our lives.

[MadPick]

^ Well, a brace is permanently attached as well. Not welded, but as permanently attached as a stock, barrel, etc. is.

And as to what makes sense, I think it depends on the purpose of the length measurement. Is it about concealability? If so, I think the brace should count.

[MadPick]

All right ... time out.

I just went back and read the original ATF letter. Follow the link in the OP, and read the letter.

We’ve been using the conclusion that “the brace doesn’t count,” but I think that’s incorrect. What they’re saying is that if you have a FOLDING brace (or presumably telescoping?), then you need to measure the gun with the brace in the folded position.

That’s a very, very different scenario for many of us.

[A.O.]

I just got my form 1 approved on my Scorpion. When I looked at attaching a stock, it made me think...

The gearhead works adapter and tailhook are pinned into the cheakrest by one pin. Tap out the pin, and everything slides out and falls off. What is the definition of attached? If I slide a stock into the hole, but it drops free, is it attached? Just like the idea of a buffertube "lance rest" that is attached to your shoulder and couches the tube... so much of the ATF rulings is legal sewage. Glad I filed and got my stamp. Now I can disregard which way the wind blows this week vs next.

[RocketScott]

All right ... time out.

I just went back and read the original ATF letter. Follow the link in the OP, and read the letter.

We’ve been using the conclusion that “the brace doesn’t count,” but I think that’s incorrect. What they’re saying is that if you have a FOLDING brace (or presumably telescoping?), then you need to measure the gun with the brace in the folded position.

That’s a very, very different scenario for many of us.

That's not correct. Read the first paragraph on the second page of the letter

Even if the brace doesn't fold it still doesn't count because it's an accessory. Adding superfluous material to the back of the gun doesn't increase the length for the OAL measurement

Using an AR based pistol as an example: The receiver extension counts but any sort of brace or material that goes onto the extension doesn't. It makes no difference how it's attached. Now, if you used a rifle length receiver extension to get the gun over 26" you would meet their rule

[RocketScott]

Now wait a second....I purchase a Black Aces DTRS in January simply because it's designed around/with the NFA wording in the rule book. Not a work around....not a grey area. Simply a cut and dry design approved by the BATFE or "bat fuck" as I like to call them.
Sooooo...now as of June 25th it's reclassified?

I believe you will have to take the forward grip off

They are relying on the brace being extended to get over 26". That's no longer the case

Of course if your 'firearm' needs to be manually racked then is the VFG there to aid in doing that and not intended as a forward grip while shooting?

I notice Black Aces doesn't list pump 'firearms' on their website and none of their current offerings have VFGs

[RocketScott]

One of the many problems I see with their ruling is that they want it both ways

For OAL measurements they claim that the brace is an accessory and doesn't count

But for the LOP measurement they are using the back of the brace with it extended. Anything over 13.5" is a 'stock'