What are people likely to do with their AR pistols after Augusts rule change?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • areamike

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 6, 2022
    48
    18
    Monticello, IN
    Sometimes.

    Cite me a case.
    U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”. Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261.

    U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities ONLY, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s Laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” – Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d,1344, 1348 (1985).

    The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
    The natural rights of human beings are these: first, a right to life, second to liberty, and third to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
     

    Destro

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 10, 2011
    3,423
    63
    The Khyber Pass
    U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the codes, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”. Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261.

    U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION – “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities ONLY, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s Laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…” – Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d,1344, 1348 (1985).
    100% serious question, did you look those cases up and read the entire decisions before copy/pasta?
     

    JAL

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    1,026
    83
    Indiana
    A major part of the issue with Pistol Braces and the proposed ATF 4999 with 18 pages of rambling text attempting to explain it, is that it reverses what ATF has published in letters clarifying the making, installation and use of Pistol Braces and Stabilizers. Suddenly, those who had heretofore legal Pistol Brace configurations, become felons overnight, having acted and relied "in good faith" on what ATF has stated in the past. This kind of behavior by a government entity is commonly referred to as "arbitrary and capricious". Governments and their agencies are not allowed to play "Calvinball" with their rules and regulations, especially those that will inflict economic losses, or with punitive ones that suddenly make people criminals (a cultural reference to Calvin and Hobbes). It's not "thousands" of pistol braces and users that are affected. It's many millions of them.

    This is a l-o-n-g posting. Bear with me as it reveals why many are livid with ATF and their proposed ATF 4999 that flies in the face of a decade of public clarifications and brace approvals, reversing them all.

    ATF painted themselves into a corner with a succession of approvals, approval letters and clarification letters over the past ten years. Now they're trying to use a tanker of paint remover to accomplish a de facto Pistol Brace ban without actually banning them outright. The 2018 case of U.S. v. Kelland Jamieson Wright, Northern District of Ohio is very telling about ATF tactics. There was no clarity to the maximum "Length of Pull" allowed with a brace until ATF was forced to provide a definitive one in the prosecution of Wright for possession of a Short Barrel Rifle. All ATF had publicly stated - or in individual approval letters prior to that was a nebulous 13.5 - 14.5 inches began treading into shoulder stock length of pull territory, an ambiguous definition. In a 31 October 2017 letter to Shockwave Technologies regarding a new Pistol Brace submission for evaluation that was approved by ATF:
    . . . "FTISB research has determined the average length of pull found on shoulder-fired weapons is approximately 13.5-14.5 inches." . . .
    They measured the maximum length of pull with the brace submitted for approval fully extended on a representative AR-15 with a standard carbine buffer tube to be 13-3/16 inches.

    Even more telling was local law enforcement, ATF, and the Federal Prosecutor deliberately measuring the length of pull improperly at an angle (versus parallel to the barrel) to get a measurement just over 13.5 inches. Wright was acquitted in an hour, including the jury having lunch, after their willfully improper measurement shenanigans were exposed. This kind of deliberately ambiguous and nebulous definitions and clarifications, so that ATF can do whatever it damn well pleases in interpreting them to "nail" someone they've decided to crucify, doesn't do well for public confidence in them. It's Wright's trial that forced revelation of ATF's hardline 13.5" maximum Length of Pull.

    An example of ATF's capriciousness is highlighted with Shockwave Technology's blade stabilizers . . .
    This is their original Blade Pistol Stabilizer from early 2015 after having been approved by ATF in December 2014. I've attached a copy of the ATF approval letter. It uses a setscrew to hold it onto a pistol buffer tube with detents for customizing the length. From their December 2014 approval letter:
    "If a user so desires, they can wrap a standard sling around the Blade AR and their forearm and secure it with the thumb of their firing hand to further stabilize their firearm in both the horizontal and vertical planes."
    The prototype blade submitted was without a strap and only had one diagonal sling slot. There was no comment in the approval letter regarding requiring straps or about its adjustable length, nor was there any comment about length of pull, or limiting it.

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabilizer ATF Approved Prototype.jpg

    A subsequent letter regarding a new model prototype referenced back to the production version of the currently approved one. The production one has two additional slots on top and just below the buffer tube. No straps are on the production version which I believe moved the setscrew from the front to the middle.

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabilizer 1.jpg

    Two years later, in 2017, Shockwave sought to make version 2.0 of this blade and submitted a prototype to ATF for their evaluation and approval. Version 2.0 replaces the setscrew with an adjustment lever, and can be used on a Mil-Spec carbine buffer tube. Like the original prototype, it has one diagonal sling slot. ATF approved it in October 2017. I've attached a PDF of their letter. Regarding this submission, the letter states:
    "The current submission has one attachment point for a strap or sling as opposed to three attachment points in the most recent evaluated design, which was designed to further secure the device to the operator's forearm to stabilize their firearm in both the horizontal and vertical planes. Please note that a sling or strap was not evaluated as part of the previous submission. We noted the current submitted sample is also devoid of any kind of strap or sling."
    The production version of this is called the "2M" and looks identical to the submitted example with color added to the moldings (e.g. black, FDE, etc.).

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabiliazer 2M Right Side.jpg

    Shockwave included a standard Mil-Spec Carbine buffer tube with their submission. The positioning of the spring loaded peg that locks the brace into position on the buffer tube only allows the four rearmost adjustment detents to be used. Not unusual for a pistol brace. I've got others that don't allow using all of them (e.g. Magpul BSL). Note that the pistol is an "A4" or "M4 Carbine" style with Carbine buffer tube, a carry handle containing the M2/3/4/M4 style rear iron rifle sight attached to the Picatinny rail on top of the upper receiver and an A2/3/4/M4 pistol grip (the A1/2/3 handle is integral to the upper). There is no sling or strap.

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabiliazer 2M on AR-15 Pistol.jpg

    In this submission, ATF measured the maximum Length of Pull with the brace fully extended. Their approval letter stated regarding this . . .
    "FTISB maintains that 'length of pull' is a measurement found on shoulder-fired weapons, generally measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the buttplate/buttstock. FTISB research has determined the average length of pull found on shoulder-fired weapons is approximately 13.5-14.5 inches. FTISB personnel found that when installed to an AR-type receiver, the maximum length of pull observed was approximately 13-3/16 inches.
    Nowhere did ATF state there was a bright red line maximum of 13.5 inches. That wasn't discovered until ATF claimed it was about a year later in the U.S. v. Kelland Wright trial.

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabiliazer 2M max Length of Pull.jpg

    ATF approved this brace with the following remarks:
    "You should also be aware that the ATF has concluded that attaching the Shockwave Blade Pistol Stabilizer to an AR-type handgun alone as a forearm brace, does not 'make' a NFA Weapon."
    "However, if he shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock - for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace - and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has objectively 'redesigned' the firearm for the purposes of the NFA. This conclusion is not based upon the mere fact that the firearm was fired from the shoulder at some point." [emphasis mine]
    "As received, the Shockwave Technologies brand, 'Blade Pistol Stabilizer 2.0' is a firearm accessory not regulated by the GCA or NFA. An AR-type pistol with the Blade Stabilizer attached, is not a 'firearm' as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). Please be aware, that a weapon which is designed,, or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger is classified as a "rifle" as defined in the GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(7).
    Reference to 26 U.S.C. is about NFA regulated firearms (i.e. short barrel rifles and shotguns, machineguns, etc.). Reference to 18 U.S.C. is the ATF legal definition of a "rifle" (short barrel or not). The upshot of these paragraphs at the end of the approval letter is if used, as designed, it does not convert an AR pistol into a Short Barrel Rifle, in spite of being adjustable along four detent points of a carbine buffer using an adjustment lever, and lacking a strap to tie it to the shooter's forearm, or even a practical (usable) strap attachment slot or point. The angled slot is geared for a sling .

    Neither of these ATF approved forearm braces, as approved, would pass the proposed ATF 4999. I've read through the 18 pages of text and the three examples ATF published along with the proposed form a half-dozen times to understand it better and how the form entries relate to the examples and their scoring. The wording on the form doesn't have the best clarity. A score of 4 points or more in either Section II or III fails the evaluation and the firearm is considered an NFA Short Barrel Rifle.

    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabilizer, approved in 2014, if installed on AR Pistol out of the box:
    • Section II FAIL with 5 points:
      • 0 points for similarity to known shoulder stock design
      • 1 point for rear surface area lacking features to discourage shouldering (i.e. no sharp spikes to impale you)
      • 2 points for being adjustable along the proprietary buffer tube it's designed for, even though it uses a setscrew
      • 2 points for a fin "type" design without an arm strap
    • Section III FAIL with 4-6 points depending on length of pull:
      • 1-3 points for length of pull fully extended (unable to measure this but it's going to be greater than zero)
      • 1 point for AR type pistol buffer tube with Adjustment Notches
      • 2 points for "Fin-type" lacking an arm strap
      • Peripheral Accessories need not be considered as it already fails
    Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabilizer 2M (originally 2.0), approved in 2017 as installed on AR Pistol in letter:
    • Section II FAIL with 6 points:
      • 1 point for similarity with known shoulder stock design features (the adjustment lever)
      • 1 point for rear surface area lacking features to discourage shouldering
      • 2 points for adjustability
      • 2 points for "Fin-type" lacking an arm strap
    • Section III FAIL with 7 points (6 if you ignore the pistol's iron sights):
      • 3 points for 13-3/16 inch Length of Pull
      • 1 point for Adjustable Rifle Buffer Tube
      • 2 points for "Fin-type" lacking an arm strap
      • 1 point for rifle type iron sights (Peripheral Accessories don't matter as it already fails)
    Both of these Shockwave braces, if installed as ATF approved will instantly make their owners/possessors felons and send them to jail for 10 years. You can do the same with an SB Tactical SBA-3 or SBA-4. and they score worse than the Shockwave fins. ATF has obviously designed the ATF 4999 to make all accessory braces or stabilizers fail when installed without modification out of the box per manufacturer instructions - as originally ATF approved. Most telling about ATF and its desire for all statements and determinations it makes to remain ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious so that they can later claim anything they desire to - as they did in their specious 2018 prosecution of Kelland Wright - is at the top of the proposed ATF 4999.
    "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a 'stabilizing brace' for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a 'short-barreled rifle' and circumvent the GCA or NFA."
    No matter how low the score in Sections II or III, ATF is still going to throw you into the slammer for ten years if they feel like doing it because they don't like the cut of your jib, or more likely your politics after having been politically weaponized over the past 18 months. Thus, the uproar over the proposed ATF 4999 after millions have acted in good faith using clarification and classification letters published by ATF stating pistol brace devices they purchased and installed are not NFA/GCA items, are now being accused of illegally making Short-Barreled Rifles.

    John

    Postscript:
    One clarification on the form in Section III that required some digging. A "Folding Adapter" is just that, a removable accessory brace or stabilizer that folds and unfolds. It is not a folding pistol receiver such as a Law Tactical or Sylvan Arms hinged folder that is permanently installed on the receiver with the buffer tube attached to it. It's part of the pistol, not the removable brace adapter. Those that have added a Law Tactical or similar device to their pistol should be cognizant that these increase Length of Pull and can push it over the 13.5 inch limit unless steps are taken to modify the buffer tube to prevent the brace from using one or more of its rearmost detents. ATF 4999, if implemented, completely changes the Length of Pull consideration and its adjustability to beyond simply keeping it under 13.5 inches.
     

    Attachments

    • Shockwave Technology Blade Pistol Stabilizer 1 ATF Approval.pdf
      100.1 KB · Views: 1
    • ATF-approval-letter-31OCT17.pdf
      1.3 MB · Views: 0
    Last edited:

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    32,846
    113
    .
    It's become awfully complicated today, but going back to 1934 I think the intention was to keep criminals from taking long guns and making them more concealable. Looking back through time I think the government should take a hard look at how many crimes were involving shortened long guns both before and the nearly 90 years since. I'm going to speculate that much like recording ammunition sales, it's not putting a dent in shootings.

    The gardener asked me about the 34 recently and I said that it happened at a time when people saw the federal government and federal laws as a solution to everything. Are we safer now?
     

    Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    32,846
    113
    .
    The Gun Control Act of 1968 really should have been known as The Leadership Fear Act of 1968 as that's what it was really about. Leadership was reacting to assassinations and the general unraveling of the fabric of society. When they feel that their power is threatened, there really is no limit to what they will do, it all depends on how scared they are. Somewhat apprehensive and you got restrictions on firearms, really scared and you will get 1984.

    When you look at your reflection in the bottom of a well, what you see is only on the surface. Try to see the meaning hidden underneath, the measure of the depth can be deceiving. The bottom has a rocky reputation.

    In the eyes of the confessor.
     
    Last edited:

    JAL

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    1,026
    83
    Indiana
    There have been AR pistols for a long time and stabilizing braces were introduced in 2013 as the "SB-15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace" from SB Tactical.

    Is the position I'm hearing is that there was no practical use for an AR pistol before 2013?
    It's been generally recognized in everything I've seen and read on their history that an AR Pistol is difficult to use, most especially purely one-handed, without some sort of brace to stabilize it, or by propping it up on a bench sandbag as if one were zeroing its sights as accurately as possible. The SB-15 was created when a disabled friend of its creator was asked to cease using one on a range as he couldn't control it adequately. The availability of ATF Approved braces and how they facilitated handling one propelled them from relatively obscure range toys into high popularity.

    Using a sandbag for bench firing one to facilitate zeroing as accurately as possible could easily be construed an SBR crime as it constructively creates a bipod demonstrating the pistol incapable of being fired one-handed (and therefore designed for shoulder firing). Likewise, using one's non-firing hand on the magazine well could easily be an AOW crime as it constructively creates an illegal foregrip out of the well. Additionally, resting the pistol on its magazine when firing it could easily be another SBR crime as it constructively creates a monopod -- demonstrating it's incapable of being fired single-handed and is therefore designed to be shoulder fired. The ATF is quite inventive when it comes to finding something . . . anything . . . to use when they decide to crucify someone. Think this isn't plausible? Ask Kelland Wright (U.S.A. v. Kelland Wright; 2018, Northern District of Ohio).
    "Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime."
    -- Lavrentiy Beria
    He became Soviet NKVD Chief in 1938 overseeing state security under Joseph Stalin; responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands including outright genocides (Katyn was one of them). Quickly became the man for whom the crimes were found after Stalin's death in March 1953, and was executed for them in June 1953.
    This should be ATF's mantra.

    John
     
    Last edited:

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    14,593
    113
    North Central
    Using a sandbag for bench firing one to facilitate zeroing as accurately as possible could easily be construed an SBR crime as it constructively creates a bipod demonstrating the pistol incapable of being fired one-handed (and therefore designed for shoulder firing). Likewise, using one's non-firing hand on the magazine well could easily be an AOW crime as it constructively creates an illegal foregrip out of the well. Additionally, resting the pistol on its magazine when firing it could easily be another SBR crime as it constructively creates a monopod -- demonstrating it's incapable of being fired single-handed and is therefore designed to be shoulder fired. The ATF is quite inventive when it comes to finding something
    I believe it is not helpful to the cause to explain this in detail to all the anti’s…

    All of that is legal with any pistol.

    Please quit…
     

    JAL

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    1,026
    83
    Indiana
    So I should not go and get a brace for the POF MP5 clone I just got?
    I'm not a lawyer . . . you need to assess where you potentially stand with it legally now, prior to any rule changes, and then where you would stand legally if the rules change.

    Biggest thing I know of currently is ensuring your length of pull when fully extended isn't over 13.5 inches. Doing dumb stuff like adding a butt pad to it (e.g. a LimbSaver like I saw one dude do - in a YouTube video now removed) or anything else to the back end to make it more comfortable when shouldered getting you into trouble is fairly common knowledge. A few companies tried a slick one creating pads whose alleged purpose was protecting the back of the fin from damage and keeping debris out of the buffer tube hole. ATF dropped the hammer on them immediately. They still sell them with enormous caveats regarding SBR legality when using one if the barrel on the firearm is under 16". Removing any strap(s) it comes with is a risky move (just tighten it down around it if you don't use it - if it comes with one).

    Evaluate it as installed on your pistol in accordance with the proposed ATF4999. Read the 18 accompanying pages well several times, and walk through the examples with the explanations carefully. Then have a plan for what you'll do if it's implemented in December, which means it would go onto effect several months later in early 2023. Other forums and some of the better YouTube channels have more information . . . watch the creation dates of videos . . . some of them are old . . . and some of them that walk through the ATF4999 don't know what they're doing. Always have your BS Detector turned on.

    John
     
    Last edited:

    JAL

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    1,026
    83
    Indiana
    Good morning DD! How was your sleep? I actually think it was not a truth. Everything JAL cited can be done legally with any pistol. He makes a fake case against the AR/AK pistols…
    Only predicting what AFT will do to make cases against those it wants to crucify. In the USA v Kelland Wright trial, the Gov't managed to suppress every piece of AFT exculpatory documentation regarding braces, brace approvals, Length of Pull, their policy letters, and how Length of Pull was measured . . . arguing it would only confuse the jury . . . and the judge bought it. I consider that proof that they'll say and do whatever it takes when they decide to put someone in prison for ten years, whether they've actually committed a crime or not, just because they decided they didn't like them or their politics, or their speech.

    John
    (who is using ATF's new official acronym, "AFT" as Biden has renamed them)
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,073
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Civics 101 Refresher:

    U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, Role of the President:
    . . .
    "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

    POTUS has 10 days (not counting Sundays) to sign or veto which usually ends up being 11 calendar days, occasionally 12. If POTUS does neither and Congress is still in session (meaning it could have been returned with a veto), it passes into law by default. If Congress is not in session which would prevent its return to Congress, it dies, permanently, and cannot passed by a veto override (2/3 of both chambers). The latter is called a "Pocket Veto" after James Madison reportedly put a bill he didn't like in his vest pocket knowing Congress would be in recess when the ten days expired. Vetoed bills are returned to their originating chamber. To prevent a Pocket Veto on a bill, the originating chamber will sometimes designate one member (or a few members) to be present for business to accept a veto while everyone else is out. The fuzzy area legally continues to be what constitutes "adjournment". SCOTUS has held forth on this a few times, but there's never been complete clarity.

    I don't know about Indiana's Constitution . . . Indiana's Supreme Court declared the Pocket Veto on Indiana bills unconstitutional in 1969 wreaking havoc with many bills that had been subjected to it, some well over 100 years old. Indiana legislature repealed them all to clean everything up. Where that all stands now I don't know.

    John
    Thank you for the correction. I thought the pocket veto was a thing at the federal level. Time to go back and read some more.

    +1 JAL

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    JAL

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    1,026
    83
    Indiana
    This thread is a great opportunity to say things online that get our dogs shot.

    They're watching . . . always watching . . . ever vigilant and they'll burn down your house too.

    AFT Agent Eyes Only 1024.jpg

    No doubt they are watching using key word and key phrase searches -- given the most recent FBI labeling of anyone displaying or using patriotic symbols and flags as Violent Extremist Domestic Terrorists. Fits right in with weaponizing the Patriot Act to swoop down on parents who remonstrated at school board meetings to terrorize their entire families. There was a time four decades ago when I had some respect for the three-letter agencies. No more. Not now. They're political weapons.

    John
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom