ATF Changes Its Mind - Again

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by moe mensale, Jul 8, 2019.

  1. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    Got a braced AR "pistol?" If it has a vertical fore grip on it, it may now be an AOW subject to NFA registration. I'm not sure if this applies across the board or just to the letter writer but I'm going to assume across the board. It must be nice to just change your mind after years of leading people on to believe something is "legal" and then they have no recourse. You know, like they did with the bump stocks.

    https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/...ength-when-equipped-with-a-stabilizing-brace/
     
  2. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    That's always been the case. No vertical forgrips allowed on pistols. VFG + Pistol = AOW

    ANGLED forgrips are OK though.

    However, the bullshit part of that ruling is that OAL should not have to be measured from the shortest possible configuration.
     
    blind_shake and blakestree like this.

  3. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,612
    155
    63
    A VFG has always been illegal on a pistol. That’s nothing new.

    If your braced AR “pistol” has an overall length of 26” or more, it’s legally a firearm not a pistol, and can have a VFG.

    The issue is when you have a folding brave. Traditionally they were measured with the brace extended, like you would measure the OAL of a rifle. The ATF has reversed course, saying that since braces are not stocks they are not part of the “pistol”, and that such “pistols” should be measured with the brace folded.
     
    blind_shake likes this.
  4. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,476
    595
    113
    Measure this, measure that. Sounds like British Crown nonsense.

    It's a firearm, and it "shall not be infringed".
     
    Ronnie and jlw253 like this.
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    How has ATF "Changed its mind" or "reversed course" ?

    Did ATF previously study this issue of how to measure the overall length of pistols with a folding or partially -detachable arm brace ?

    Having previously considered this issue did ATF rule that pistol arm braces shall be measured in the fully extended position ?


    I don't think so.

    The gun community interpreted ATF's silence as legal approval. Which, of course, it is not.
     
    Adam5 likes this.
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    That is exactly what ATF has changed.
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    Did you read the article? As previously mentioned they changed their interpretation of how you measure OAL with a folding brace on your pistol. If you're in the business of interpreting and enforcing stupid laws at least provide consistent guidelines that don't change with the direction of the wind. People become felons and manufacturers go out of business. The burden belongs on the ATF not the gun owners.
     
  8. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    did you read the article??

    Re-read it again and highlight for me the part that says ATF changed a previously-stated position on this issue (of how to measure overall length of a weapon equipped with a arm stabilization brace).

    I'll wait.
     
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Or, if the answer is not in that article (perhaps because the article was edited at some point to make it shorter) perhaps you could find me some other documentation that ATF issued an opinion on this topic prior to June of 2019 .
     
  10. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
  11. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    Prior to that letter ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) established that a firearm’s OAL is measured with the stock or brace fully extended, even when using a folding brace. They've now changed that stating that OAL when using a folding brace is measured with the folding brace folded, not opened. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.
     
    Squid likes this.
  12. DKW

    DKW Active Member

    427
    45
    28
    I thought that length was for rifles only considering you are talking about the "stock".
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    A quick google search shows NO such "Firearms Technology Branch" letter about measuring OAL on PiSTOLS with BRACES.

    The best "evidence" out there is anecdotal, with several cases of ATF approving Manufacturers to build and sell firearms with folding / telescoping arm braces, and the manufacturers listed the gun's overall length using a calculation based on the stock extended out to maximum length.

    ATF accepted that without objection and used those figures in the registration paperwork.
     
  14. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    The issue we're discussing here relates only to braced pistols. ATF hasn't said that the new folding stock rule applies to SBRs and SBSs. But since you're paying the tax on them you can have whatever stock - or none at all - you want on it. Is that what you were asking?
     
  15. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch is responsible for all things technical regarding firearms and ammunition on the federal level. No one else. Whether that is their own in-house determination or approving someone else's submission. I don't see what's so difficult to understand.
     
  16. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    A BLT sandwich has to have bacon, lettuce, and tomato. No other ingredients aside from condiments.
    I don't know what's so hard to understand about that?
     
  17. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    I don't believe this, at least not the way you worded it. That ATF seriously considered this issue and their firearms technology branch came down with the ruling settling the issue (measure pistols with arm braces fully extended) and ESTABLISHING that as ATF's policy.

    It's really suspicious that in your original article, in post #1 of this thread (an article written by a lawyer and published on the blog of a gun rights law firm) it does not cite or document ATF's alleged prior determination or ruling that the attorney-writer now says they've rejected and reversed their position on.

    Lawyers are trained that before you accuse somebody of making a new statement that is inconsistent with a prior statement, you have to prove their prior statement and document when and where it was said and re-create the exact verbiage used.
     
  18. DKW

    DKW Active Member

    427
    45
    28
    I concur with you general position.

    People assumed that when the ATF allowed the use of braces on pistols, they thought they had approval to use the brace length in the overall calculation.

    And everyone know what happens when you "Assume" things.
     
  19. Adam5

    Adam5 Atlanta Overwatch

    13,612
    155
    63
    The ATF never issued a previous position on how to measure a “pistol” with a folding brace, only how to measure rifles. People assumes they would be measured the same way. The ATF just proved those people wrong.

    Bear in mind that the ATF uses different definitions for a pistol, firearm, or rifle. When you talk about how the ATF measured a firearm, are you using the ATF’s definition or your definition?
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  20. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,595
    1,697
    113
    Whether I misstated the ATF's prior position or actual lack of one, the issue here is what their stated position is now on pistols with folding braces. That was the point of what I posted. Some here may be affected by it and might want to change their setups to avoid a potential NFA gaffe.

    This might also affect those who own Shockwave and Tac-14 non-shotguns with a folding stock. There's at least one company selling one for those guns. Those folding stocks will not bring the non-shotguns to the required 26+" OAL if measured folded. That's my personal opinion since the letter only dealt with pistols.
     
    gunsmoker likes this.