My brother's friend in CT may be in a bind due to new brace rule.

Racer88

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
10,638
Reaction score
11,495
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
So here's a good one! My brother's friend... we'll call him Tom... lives in CT.

You can't buy an AR-15 rifle in CT. But, they found a way around it. So Tom bought this several months ago for $1200:
1673794335627.png


It's an AR-15 "pistol" with a 16-inch barrel... with a "brace" added to it. At the time, in CT, that's a "pistol." Actually, they call it an "other" firearm. Cool, eh?

Edit to add: CT's definition of "other" -
The short answer is that an “other firearm” is one that is designed to be fired with 2 hands, does not have a stock and has an overall length that exceeds 26″. Basically, according to the definition set forth by the ATF it is not a pistol, not a rifle and not under the jurisdiction of the NFA therefore it classifies as an “other firearm.”

Ha! Not so fast now! New AFT rule about braces! Braces are now effectively stocks.

So, that "other" just became an AR-15 RIFLE by the AFT standards, since it has a 16 inch barrel and a stock. Right?

So, in Free America, Tom would be just fine. No registration needed. Go about yer bidness!

But he's in CT, where AR-15 RIFLES are banned / illegal (unless you owned it before July 1, 1994). Rut-roh!

Ironically, if he installs a shorter barrel and then registers it as an SBR with the AFT, he'd be legal federally AND at the state level!

Or he can permanently remove the "brace" and it stays an "other"... a rather useless "other /pistol." I think he'd have to remove that forward vertical grip, as well.

Hell... I don't really know. It's all quite convoluted.
 
Last edited:
If the overall length is under 26" (modified from a rifle) then it is also considered an SBR under current ATF rules - so would that give some path to keeping the barrel at 16" and calling it an SBR?
 
brian said:
If the overall length is under 26" (modified from a rifle) then it is also considered an SBR under current ATF rules - so would that give some path to keeping the barrel at 16" and calling it an SBR?
Click to expand...

Ah, yeah... don't know the overall length.
 
Lot of repetition in the document, IIRC somewhere around page 98(??) they addressed foregrips not being an issue relative to this, though I suspect they are just trying to 'catch' people since it WILL be a problem elsewhere... But yeah, either lop an inch off the barrel and register it, or pull the 'brace' off. If he was using the brace as a 'stock', that was the problem to begin with. I honestly feel that if braces had been used over the last decade 99% as BRACES, the ATF wouldn't have such a hard-on about going after them, but abuse of the braces has been wide-spread and known for years, documented constantly on social media, so yeah... Congress passed the SBR rules, people abusing braces circumvented them.
...Flame Suit on...
1673861168460.png
 
Last edited:
Well now, the "brace" has always been a thinly disguised way around the SBR Form 1 and from day 1 was living on borrowed time.
I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.
I have never ever seen anybody use the "brace" as "intended" able bodied or not.
ar-15-pistol-brace.jpg


First time I ever saw one at a gun show years ago I got yelled at for shouldering it.
He then showed me how to "use it" and well its effing retarded.
Then the ATF came out with the OK - to use a fork as a spoon - letter and all rejoiced.......
I'll borrow your flame suit now.
 
I'm not going to crap on the brace though I personally don't have a use for it (have also never tried it). The fact that the govt wants to ban it is good enough for me to want it to stay legal. The further fact that the govt ruled it ok and now wants to ban it just makes me want to double down on keeping it legal.
 
Well I try and see it this way, we live in a dynamic environment that will never stop evolving. Good or bad doesn’t matter.
Who would have thought we needed laws for self driving electric cars?
Does Freedom of “Speech” apply to typewriters and faxes and the Internet and Smartphones? Of course it does.
What did we get since 1934? Bump stocks and binary triggers and red dots and grip lasers and holographic sights and .50 BMG’s and “pistols” and braces and probably a dozen other fabs that came and went.
Every new design or idea will need to be tested against the law.
A pistol in a common rifle caliber with a brace is for all intends and purposes a SBR.
Now the fact that it’s obvious doesn’t make it legal or illegal per se.
The “Law” will need to determine that and if we don’t like the “Law” then there are processes in place to change the “Law”.
Now to me that’s an entirely different discussion from the ATF overstepping their boundaries and “making up law” or “misinterpreting law” intentionally to fit an agenda.
Don’t go crying Biden, bumpstocks got banned under the Trump administration and if I’m not mistaken Floridians lost binary triggers under DeSantis.
Whomever needs 293 pages to explain themselves…….yeah that’s a no from me dog.
 
Last edited:
I've used one, AS INTENDED, and I liked it. Even with a pistol-length barrel, AR-platform pistols are ungainly and nose-heavy. Using them one-handed is... Not ideal. With the brace strapped-up, it is 100% GTG. Makes a difference. Is it the end-all be-all? No. I'll live without one if need be, but if I only had one good arm and the only pistol I had was AR-based, , I would be PISSED. Seems easy enough to provide a brace that does NOT provide any effective 'rear area' for shouldering at least for buffer-tube type weapons -Hell, turn the damn thing around...
1673993746397.png

Hmmm, THIS isn't a 'stock', is it? Can't 'shoulder' a three-foot stick coming off the back of...
1673993838331.png

Uh-oh...
:cautious::LOL:
 
Message to "Tom"...

1673995961780.png
 
but if I only had one good arm and the only pistol I had was AR-based
Click to expand...

So would you strap the brace to your good arm or your bad arm?
Which arm would you disable?
Wouldn't you be better off with a real full size rifle?

evans01.jpg

Amputee « Daily Bulletin

Content tagged with Amputee.
bulletin.accurateshooter.com bulletin.accurateshooter.com
 
??? Really? No, I get your question about 'disabling' your arm by obstructing its' use with a strapped-on braced pistol, but I would NOT choose to use a full-length rifle in my home or other tightly confined space.

Don't take this as combative, or directed against you -it isn't, but if you are going to direct this question into this arena, be aware this is where I will be directing my answers from:
"I'm not a proponent of laws that on the face of them limit the options for other people using criteria of 'it doesn't effect me'. I can afford a true rifle, AND a pistol. Others may not have that option. Both of my hands and arms function well, despite the service my life experiences have demanded of them, and with the plethora of injuries they have sustained, I'll tell you I am lucky -others may not have that blessing. I have a hand-gun ready to defend my home, I may want the option for a rifle if I need to extend out to my property, or if I faced an adversary I believed to be wearing body-armor. If I need to make a compromise, a properly braced rifle-caliber pistol looks like a good alternative to me. I'm sure it does to other people too. I have actually seen plenty of actual 'need'-based use of braces, used properly. Personally, I have no interest in infringing on that. Nor of telling a man or woman how they should best defend themselves."

Shall we continue from here, or are we good?;)
 
We can continue, this is not meant as a personal attack.
So you like an SBR for home defense?
 
Alpa Chino said:
We can continue, this is not meant as a personal attack.
So you like an SBR for home defense?
Click to expand...
Cool, so long as we are good.(y) No, I like pistols. However, I have a bit of land, and there are some... Potentially dangerous things out in the wilds. I own 10mm, which is usually more than enough, but I also have ventured into the idea of a rifle-caliber pistol... In fact have considered that for a VERY long time. I find the concept intriguing, and I believe that even with the rules and limitations in place up until recently, such a platform would make a fantastic inside/outside defensive weapon. I don't have the same concerns regarding over-penetration through barriers like walls that some others might have, so a bigger cartridge doesn't scare me off for fear of hurting bystanders. I suspect others may see similar uses in what they might refer to as a 'truck gun' outside the home too. For the record, I do not see a properly-used braced pistol as an SBR, funny that the atf didn't until now either. I don't think they would have changed their minds had so many people, consumers and producers alike, so directly been giving them the finger over it.:cautious:

I definitely see where having a gun strapped to your forearm could be a hindrance, but I also see where the platform's capabilities would be useful and the strap would be the compromise for gaining the stability and control. Would I prefer a straight-out stock? Actually in this case, no. Because even with a regular stock, the stability of one-handed fire is not there. In an urgency, an 'inadvertent shouldering' wasn't prohibited by the atf, it seemed the regs were fairly reasonable earlier on. But with the shorter barrel of a pistol, I don't think the effective range and accuracy justifies the need for a regular stock either.

That said, I think the NFA is outdated, and should be repealed. Legally. So long as it is in place though, I haven't had a problem complying with it -it hasn't stepped on my toes, but it is now hampering others (potentially with physical disabilities), so I am not approving of this current re-write of the rules.
 
Braces are stocks. Anybody who says they aren't is delusional. Everybody shoulders them. The ATF is right about that.

That said, the regulation and NFA defining SBRs make no sense. Never did. The reason there are 40 million braces in the hands of gun owners is that the SBR rule in NFA is pointless and people figured out braces undermine the NFA. The larger question is... what f-ing difference does the barrel or overall length of a modern long gun matter?

Personally, I'd rather have a stock than a brace. But I don't think I should have to pay a tax and register a rifle-caliber pistol with the government just because I added a stock. Or brace.

The NRA hasn't done squat about getting the NFA changed. They suck. I regret being a lifetime member.

The NRA are strangely silent on braces. SBRs and suppressors need to be removed from NFA. I am perfectly fine with regulating civilian use and ownership of true machine guns, anti-tank weapons, et al. Certain weapons have no civilian use at all and should be regulated. But a semi-automatic rifle of any length is not one of those firearms.
 
Last edited:
Bongo Lewi said:
Braces are stocks. Anybody who says they aren't is delusional. Everybody shoulders them. The ATF is right about that.

That said, the regulation and NFA defining SBRs make no sense. Never did. The reason there are 40 million braces in the hands of gun owners is that the SBR rule in NFA is pointless and people figured out braces undermine the NFA. The larger question is... what f-ing difference does the barrel or overall length of a modern long gun matter?

Personally, I'd rather have a stock than a brace. But I don't think I should have to pay a tax and register a rifle-caliber pistol with the government just because I added a stock. Or brace.
Click to expand...
I think you are over-simplifying this. But what do I know, I am apparently "delusional."
I saw a purpose to having a brace-stabilized pistol, aside from it being an SBR in sheep's clothing. It works, it fills a niche. Up until this point, that option was open, and I made damn sure I used that option as presented, not to subvert the NFA. Not 'everybody' shoulders them, the atf isn't the only one wrong about that. No doubt, many people have used them as stocks, unfortunate that bad apples spoil the whole bunch, I am sure you are right that the popularity of pistol braces is due in part to their use as a make-shift sorta-stock.

But I have a rifle. If I want a rifle, I get my rifle. I don't need a pistol to be a rifle for me. I have no doubt that even discounting the physically-impaired individuals who have a Right to Bear Arms to the best of their personal abilities, I am not alone on this. Un-braced and un-balanced AR pistols suck for one-handed use -doable but having a stabilizing brace to counter-act the front-heavy nature of that particular platform helps tremendously. Can you say from experience that this isn't true?

I stand by my prior statement above.

As to the rest of your comment, I agree:
Bongo Lewi said:
The NRA hasn't done squat about getting the NFA changed. They suck. ...

The NRA are strangely silent on braces. SBRs and suppressors need to be removed from NFA. I am perfectly fine with regulating civilian use and ownership of true machine guns, anti-tank weapons, et al. Certain weapons have no civilian use at all and should be regulated. But a semi-automatic rifle of any length is not one of those firearms.
Click to expand...
So I'll leave it at that, with a bit of both agree and disagree.
 
GSW10 said:
Not 'everybody' shoulders them, the atf isn't the only one wrong about that. No doubt, many people have used them as stocks, unfortunate that bad apples spoil the whole bunch, I am sure you are right that the popularity of pistol braces is due in part to their use as a make-shift sorta-stock.
Click to expand...

Unless the person is disabled and using it as an actual brace.... Which while I have yet to witness, I'm sure DOES happen. And that's what the "brace" was ostensibly designed to do.

The reality is that the VAST majority of buyers are not disabled and ABSOLUTELY are using them as stocks. Literally 100% of the people I've seen at the range with the "braces" are using them as stocks. Not 99%. 100%. I've never seen anyone use a brace as a brace (on the forearm, as designed) on one of these (gargantuan / ungainly) "pistols." Again, I'm sure it DOES happen.

And I've seen TONS of them at the range. They're very popular, though I have zero use or desire for one. I can't go to the range and NOT see them in use.

Now... I will also say that it shouldn't matter. It's irrelevant HOW they use them, if they were deemed legal to purchase and attach to a pistol. Period. The end. I don't care if they use them as a hat or a gardening implement.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oAQOvOEXY
 
Last edited:
GSW10 said:
I think you are over-simplifying this. But what do I know, I am apparently "delusional."
I saw a purpose to having a brace-stabilized pistol, aside from it being an SBR in sheep's clothing. It works, it fills a niche. Up until this point, that option was open, and I made damn sure I used that option as presented, not to subvert the NFA. Not 'everybody' shoulders them, the atf isn't the only one wrong about that. No doubt, many people have used them as stocks, unfortunate that bad apples spoil the whole bunch, I am sure you are right that the popularity of pistol braces is due in part to their use as a make-shift sorta-stock.

But I have a rifle. If I want a rifle, I get my rifle. I don't need a pistol to be a rifle for me. I have no doubt that even discounting the physically-impaired individuals who have a Right to Bear Arms to the best of their personal abilities, I am not alone on this. Un-braced and un-balanced AR pistols suck for one-handed use -doable but having a stabilizing brace to counter-act the front-heavy nature of that particular platform helps tremendously. Can you say from experience that this isn't true?

I stand by my prior statement above.

As to the rest of your comment, I agree:

So I'll leave it at that, with a bit of both agree and disagree.
Click to expand...
It's OK to disagree like adults. Too often forum dwellers (elsewhere) start foaming at the mouth over issues like this. Braces, caliber, one brand or another. I exit forums where low IQ types, and keyboard commandos who imagine themselves as warriors or John Wick dominate. It's nice that PGB is not like that.

I concur the Gubbament has no business telling anyone how to hold a firearm. The ATF has been schizo about braces for years. Braces were bad, then they were good, then they were bad again. Then good. Now they make legit gun owners potential felons. Crazy.

I am not a fan of AR or AK pistols. I have had a few. I do have an affinity for subguns though. Like the MP5 and its derivatives like the Scorpion, Stribog or AP5. For that style of firearm, a small, folding stock that more resembled a brace than a stock, was ideal. That concept goes back a long time. The 'grease gun' style firearms of the 1940's are good example.

It pisses me off that the factory brace on my AP5 has to be removed and disposed of in a manner that eliminates the opportunity to re-attach it. I have no desire to be a martyr or made an example of and go to prison. So I comply with the ruling. Hopefully, this overreaching madness will be overturned in the courts. My hope is the concept of an SBR being something special and suppressors - that some European countries with strict gun laws consider beneficial - become unregulated.
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Back
Top