New Issue w/ Pistol Braces

[Drcrimson]

I attended the Huntsville gun show last weekend and I did notice more than usual AR pistols without braces for sale. When the absurd AFT pistol brace ruling first came out all of the braces disappeared but they just as aggressively came back when the court rulings issued broad stays. Since those stays were issued things seemed to have returned to pre AFT rule levels. PSA has been selling braced pistols routinely today as are many others.

Besides noticing more missing braces, I did have a conversation with a dealer about a lower he had for sale at the gun show. I inquired if he would replace it with a pistol brace (I would pay the cost difference) or if he would sale it without the stock. He declined and said the AFT rep had warned him that if the AFT ruling were to stand he would be guilty of selling an unregistered SBR and would lose his FFL if he replaced the stock with a brace. I honestly dismissed the conversation as the guy just not wanting to take off the regular stock.

Today things got a little more interesting. I purchased a coupe of pistol braced lowers from PSA last week and had them shipped to a well known dealer in Cullman to do the transfer. I’ve done a significant amount of transfers through this store in the past. Apparently they have been recently told by their AFT rep that if they sale a pistol brace lower on a short barrel length upper they would be held liable for selling an unregistered SBR if the AFT rule is upheld in the future. I challenged this view point as absurd and pointed to Palmetto State selling pistol braced firearms currently on their website. The dealer agreed that it made no sense but was apparently a scare tactic by the AFT and part of their overall attempt to bully FFL holders. The dealer had no issue transferring me the lowers but said if I had ordered a full firearm in that configuration they would not have transferred it.

Nothing of the above appears to carry any legal weight but is characteristic of the AFT attempts to intimidate and threaten FFL holders. Even if it’s nonsense I can see why a business owner would be concerned. Something to be aware of out there if you are purchasing pistol braced firearms from FFLs.

 

[Lee]

Good post and good info.

You're absolutely correct. The AFT bullies FFLs, and FFLs have no choice but to err on the side of caution to protect their licenses, their businesses, and their employees, especially under this administration's zero-tolerance policies, where even clerical errors are deemed willful. It's bullshit, but I can't blame them. It also sucks that manufacturers such as PSA can freely sell them, but FFLs fear for their licenses by transferring them.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will smack down the AFT in Mock v. Garland.

 

[Drcrimson]

I certainly hope so. This FFL is a good one and I’ve done a lot of business with them. I think they were as frustrated by the situation as much as I was. Fortunately mine were ok but I’ve looked at the occasional PSA, etc braced pistol and never even thought there would be a transfer issue.

 

[LatterVersion]

Once a lower is sold in rifle configuration from a dealer (this is indicated on the 4473), it is a rifle and cant be converted to a pistol. A pistol can be converted to a rifle and back, but not the other way around. A stripped lower is a "firearm" and can be built into a pistol or a rifle, but a complete lower with a stock that has been sold as such is now a "rifle" and can only be made into a SBR with a 5320.1.

Yes it is as dumb as it sounds, but that is par for the course for the ATF. The dealer is correct, and if he bought it as a rifle, then tried to sell as a pistol the ATF would certainly flag it and he would lose his FFL.

Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a “weapon made from a rifle” if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to...

www.atf.gov

Can I lawfully make a pistol into a rifle without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length. Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such...

www.atf.gov

 

[Drcrimson]

Wouldn’t the difference at the gun show example I had be that I wasn’t asking that the lower be sold as a rifle stock configuration lower. This dealer had built the lower from a stripped lower and installed a regular stock. To my knowledge it was never sold previously as a rifle configuration lower thus there is no form 4473 declaration. Plus his given reason for not wanting to make the change was that it would cause future liability if the pistol brace rule survives legal challenges.

I asked that the lower be changed to have a pistol brace (had one next to it) that would have been sold to me in turn as a pistol configuration lower or simply remove the stock and sale it that way. Without any stock attached it would not be either configuration. I honestly think this guy just didn’t want to change his configuration.

Yes this is all absurd and why the AFT needs to take as many court losses as possible.

Btw, if you buy a lower from a fellow member that has been previously sold but now doesn’t have a stock on it is it a pistol or rifle configuration? How would you know?

 

[LatterVersion]

When an FFL takes in any firearm, it is logged their Bound book that is subject to audit at any time by the ATF. The type of firearm (rifle, shotgun, pistol, etc.) is logged. If he bought it as a complete lower with a stock, the selling FFL (manufacturer or other selling it to his FFL) logged it as a Rifle, his bound book would need to list it received as a Rifle, and he would have to transfer it with a 4473 to the buyer as a Rifle. So in that case his hands are tied and he knew that he could not change it.

As an individual, to be charged with an illegal SBR the buyer would need to state that they knew it was a rifle lower when they bought it, and they intended to put a short barrel on it. If that person intended to buy a stripped receiver to build a pistol and unknowingly bought a rifle lower, that would probably result in the ATF seizing the gun. In this situation the real question is why is this person in a position to need to justify their firearm to anyone? I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea how that would really play out. This is why it is so important to not say anything to a law enforcement officer without legal council present, there are a million little things like this that can be used to incriminate anyone.

I am in the process of starting a business and plan get an FFL soon, so I have been digging deep into the legal minefield before I apply and have to deal with this first hand. It is really stressful to consider all of this, and it really does feel like the intent is to attack and prevent FFLs from doing business.

 

[Drcrimson]

It’s is very messy and confusing. It would seem in the case of stripped lowers an FFL should only log them as pistol lowers that could in turn be converted to a pistol, rifle, etc to avoid some of the rifle designation / sbr issues in the future.

Best of luck with setting up your business. I agree there is a clear intent to intimidate FFLs into changes the aft can’t achieve via legislation or the courts.

 

[Wesleykey]

Interesting discussion

 

[Drcrimson]

Good news

 

[RTJ Traveler]

Yep. Victory!

Federal Judge Vacates ATF Rule on Pistol Braces

bearingarms.com

 

[Lee]

Good win, but not completely done. Gubmint will likely ask for a stay on the vacatur. Could go to 5th Circuit or even Supreme Court. Still a YUGE win!!

This guy breaks it down well.

 

[Drcrimson]

This is true as it’s based more on the technical basis of the rule than the 2nd amendment.

 

[Lee]

That's true, and I have hated this approach since the beginning. While I love the ATF got their face smashed, I have always wished it had been on 2A grounds or common use or the fact that this was a complete policy reversal after 10 years.

Why not common use? Even the ATF's low estimate was 3 million devices out there. The industry's low was 9 million and as high as 40 million. Where is the common use argument?

Even more important is the fact the ATF has documented their explicit approval of these braces for 10 years in multiple letters. They've even gone as far as saying it's ok to shoulder them. Now they get to say "Oops, sorry, we changed our minds. Now, you're a felon."? Fuck you, no.

Busting them for violating the APA is great, and I'll take any win and any ATF-face-smashing available; but I wish it had been on more practical and relevant grounds.

 

[HsvDug]

Good post and good info.

You're absolutely correct. The AFT bullies FFLs, and FFLs have no choice but to err on the side of caution to protect their licenses, their businesses, and their employees, especially under this administration's zero-tolerance policies, where even clerical errors are deemed willful. It's bullshit, but I can't blame them. It also sucks that manufacturers such as PSA can freely sell them, but FFLs fear for their licenses by transferring them.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will smack down the AFT in Mock v. Garland.

True dat!