ATF Pistol Brace Proposal

[ProfessorHawthorne]

I guess everyone is aware of the proposed ATF rule to make pistol braces, for the most part, extinct. This is after the ATF, over a 5+ year period, stating they were legal through a variety of letters to manufacturers. It's all in the interest of weeding out folks who are using these to circumvent the requirements for a short barreled rifle (SBR) or at least, it's the perceived impetus behind it.

My real interest in this is why is there still an SBR rule these days. I'm sure it made sense in 1934 as most handguns were 5 or 6 round revolvers - even the 1911 packed only seven. The Hughs amendment to the 1986 FOPA closed the registry on automatic firearms for civilians. So, it's not likely anybody will, for nefarious reasons, be cutting down a BAR or bobbing a Thompson 28 these days.

Pistol types and capacities have far outstripped any real advantage that an SBR might have for those involved with some sort of criminal activity - not that these folks would really pay any attention to ATF rules in the first place.

Even in the heyday of the Tec-9 and Mac-10, these were classified as pistols and with proper modifications became fully automatic. The SBR rule had no impact on the these firearms.
Pistols made on the AR 15 pattern, with or without braces don't really offer much advantage for the mayhem-intent over a modern pistol with a 20 or 30 round magazine. Look at the KelTec P50. It carries a 50 round P90 magazine firing 5.7 x 28 bottleneck cartridges at around 2000 fps. It's classified as a pistol so no effect from the SBR rule.

The SBR rule may have had a positive impact in 1934, I don't know, but I doubt it since criminals very rarely worry about ancillary "rules" when committing crimes. I really don't see the need for the rule today. It imposes a burden for those interested in a PDW for themselves or their homes and the utility these firearms would provide for those of smaller stature or for those disabled, Most likely, if SBRs were common, we would probably have a whole new shooting sport for competition.

Anyone have some additional thoughts on the SBR rules? Pistol braces aside, do we really need these rules anymore? It would seem that instead of vigorously fighting a brace ban, the focus should be on eliminating the SBR rules. I realize, in the current climate, that's not likely to happen. Perhaps after 2022?

Cheers

 

[lg325]

First thing to pop in my mind is a class mate from high school. I cannot remember his name but it used to bother him he couldn't shoot or hunt because he was born with part of his arm missing. The some gun manufacturer came out with pistol shaped fire arm bolt action chambered in 30.30. us boys told him just attach a brace to it and fit it to the disabled arm. He did just that and was one happy teen ager being able to shoot and hunt with his dad. My question is would this law prevent him for doing that now? If it does it discriminates against the handicapped. And it is an issue that needs brought up.

 

[ProfessorHawthorne]

First thing to pop in my mind is a class mate from high school. I cannot remember his name but it used to bother him he couldn't shoot or hunt because he was born with part of his arm missing. The some gun manufacturer came out with pistol shaped fire arm bolt action chambered in 30.30. us boys told him just attach a brace to it and fit it to the disabled arm. He did just that and was one happy teen ager being able to shoot and hunt with his dad. My question is would this law prevent him for doing that now? If it does it discriminates against the handicapped. And it is an issue that needs brought up.

I'm guessing the 30-30 was a standard rifle - barrel length of 16 inches or more. So, no the current proposal would not affect his set up. If your friend was, say 5' 2", weighed about 100lbs and could not handle a full size rifle, a smaller rifle would offer a real option for that person.

Cheers

 

[Ringel05]

I guess everyone is aware of the proposed ATF rule to make pistol braces, for the most part, extinct. This is after the ATF, over a 5+ year period, stating they were legal through a variety of letters to manufacturers. It's all in the interest of weeding out folks who are using these to circumvent the requirements for a short barreled rifle (SBR) or at least, it's the perceived impetus behind it.

My real interest in this is why is there still an SBR rule these days. I'm sure it made sense in 1934 as most handguns were 5 or 6 round revolvers - even the 1911 packed only seven. The Hughs amendment to the 1986 FOPA closed the registry on automatic firearms for civilians. So, it's not likely anybody will, for nefarious reasons, be cutting down a BAR or bobbing a Thompson 28 these days.

Pistol types and capacities have far outstripped any real advantage that an SBR might have for those involved with some sort of criminal activity - not that these folks would really pay any attention to ATF rules in the first place.

Even in the heyday of the Tec-9 and Mac-10, these were classified as pistols and with proper modifications became fully automatic. The SBR rule had no impact on the these firearms.
Pistols made on the AR 15 pattern, with or without braces don't really offer much advantage for the mayhem-intent over a modern pistol with a 20 or 30 round magazine. Look at the KelTec P50. It carries a 50 round P90 magazine firing 5.7 x 28 bottleneck cartridges at around 2000 fps. It's classified as a pistol so no effect from the SBR rule.

The SBR rule may have had a positive impact in 1934, I don't know, but I doubt it since criminals very rarely worry about ancillary "rules" when committing crimes. I really don't see the need for the rule today. It imposes a burden for those interested in a PDW for themselves or their homes and the utility these firearms would provide for those of smaller stature or for those disabled, Most likely, if SBRs were common, we would probably have a whole new shooting sport for competition.

Anyone have some additional thoughts on the SBR rules? Pistol braces aside, do we really need these rules anymore? It would seem that instead of vigorously fighting a brace ban, the focus should be on eliminating the SBR rules. I realize, in the current climate, that's not likely to happen. Perhaps after 2022?

Cheers

Years ago the ATF stated that using a brace as a shoulder stock was illegal. This was challenged and the ATF had to back down. This current proposed ruling by the ATF is their next step in this specific fight to claim braces actually make pistols into SBRs.

 

[lg325]

This is video of a fire arm like the one he had . Imagine it with the arm brace attached .He had to get the left handled model but this pic is close to his.

 

[night_son]

I guess everyone is aware of the proposed ATF rule to make pistol braces, for the most part, extinct. This is after the ATF, over a 5+ year period, stating they were legal through a variety of letters to manufacturers. It's all in the interest of weeding out folks who are using these to circumvent the requirements for a short barreled rifle (SBR) or at least, it's the perceived impetus behind it.

My real interest in this is why is there still an SBR rule these days. I'm sure it made sense in 1934 as most handguns were 5 or 6 round revolvers - even the 1911 packed only seven. The Hughs amendment to the 1986 FOPA closed the registry on automatic firearms for civilians. So, it's not likely anybody will, for nefarious reasons, be cutting down a BAR or bobbing a Thompson 28 these days.

Pistol types and capacities have far outstripped any real advantage that an SBR might have for those involved with some sort of criminal activity - not that these folks would really pay any attention to ATF rules in the first place.

Even in the heyday of the Tec-9 and Mac-10, these were classified as pistols and with proper modifications became fully automatic. The SBR rule had no impact on the these firearms.
Pistols made on the AR 15 pattern, with or without braces don't really offer much advantage for the mayhem-intent over a modern pistol with a 20 or 30 round magazine. Look at the KelTec P50. It carries a 50 round P90 magazine firing 5.7 x 28 bottleneck cartridges at around 2000 fps. It's classified as a pistol so no effect from the SBR rule.

The SBR rule may have had a positive impact in 1934, I don't know, but I doubt it since criminals very rarely worry about ancillary "rules" when committing crimes. I really don't see the need for the rule today. It imposes a burden for those interested in a PDW for themselves or their homes and the utility these firearms would provide for those of smaller stature or for those disabled, Most likely, if SBRs were common, we would probably have a whole new shooting sport for competition.

Anyone have some additional thoughts on the SBR rules? Pistol braces aside, do we really need these rules anymore? It would seem that instead of vigorously fighting a brace ban, the focus should be on eliminating the SBR rules. I realize, in the current climate, that's not likely to happen. Perhaps after 2022?

Cheers

The BATF cannot legislate—is not a legislative body; never has been, hopefully never shall be. Thus, on its face the concept entire of "SBR" is unconstitutional and against the rule of law and illegal. The acronym "SBR" and its associated meaning are simply bogeymen conceived by the federal government to terrify "friendly" civilians into voting against neighbors possessing them, and to commercialize firearms ownership for their own profit. In "TRUE BLUE" America concepts such as SBR would not exist. A man armed with a black powder revolver circa 1858 could kill a room full of people just as effectively as a modern prick with an "SBR".

 

[whitehall]

The old M-1911 .45 was a formidable weapon. I carried one in the Military and had to qualify right handed although I am left handed. That's the way the Military worked back then. The .45 is still used by federal cops and some agencies but the Military switched to the 9MM because the babes couldn't hold up the .45 long enough to get a sight picture. The pistol brace is a bogus issue.