My question wasn't how to retain the brace, but whether simply removing the brace sufficient to escape persecution; especially in regards to AK pistols.

WaGunLaw tackles some of that:

As he points out: Currently, some pistols with a brace are considered to be SBR's. Since you cannot reconfigure a firearm originally configured as a rifle into a pistol... if you bought it with a brace already on it, you're screwed. It will never be a pistol. So, get a longer barrel, register as an SBR or destroy.

And while they say braces are not being outlawed listen to what he says at around 6:56.



ATF rule says to bring your pistol into compliance by removing the brace you must:

"Permanently, remove and dispose of or alter the "Stabilizing Brace" such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a firearm under the NFA."

So, that brace is now illegal to attach to a pistol? Or just to THAT firearm? And since AR's have buffer tubes, does that mean it can never satisfy this part of the rule since stabilizing braces attach to buffer tubes so that firearm has not been altered so that a brace cannot be reattached?

Is any AR/AK pistol a pistol? Or does their redefinition negate that previous determination that they were ever a pistol?

As for AK's to which you may have attached a brace: I'm assuming that the stock adapter must go, and the holes in the rear trunion welded up?

HERE'S another BIG ISSUE that just occurred to me: If WA's AWB goes into effect before your form one is returned... are you out of luck? (and $200? I forgot it's free for now.) Will you not be able to keep your "newly created" SBR?

Yeah, I was just thinking about how WA may make all this pointless. If they ban all semi-autos, then no more SBRs. Who knows how much worse it's going to get here...

Pretty sure even bare tubes are a no-go now. Something about any amount of shouldering surface.

But that's not what you asked. You asked about pistols without braces and did not mention a prior configuration. Ask a specific question to get an appropriate response


No. 'Some' is the operative word. The reason the rule is almost 300 pages long is because they explain all the factors that go into determining if a pistol with a brace is a rifle


Well, they do say this:

Mighty white of them...
General speaking having a brace sitting next to the gun that it's not supposed to be attached to constitutes constructive possession. So getting rid of the brace by selling it or finding a legitimate use for it would be advised. I have two AR pistol lowers that have never been used. That's because I have 2 SBRed ARs and 4 short barreled uppers. If I build another lower there's no pathway to be charged with constructive possession because all of my short uppers have legitimate homes


No, the buffer tube is essential for the firearm to function so it doesn't count as an attachment which designs/redesigns/blah/blah to be fired from the shoulder. The exception might be .22 ARs


Stock adapter probably, hole in the trunion no would be my guess. Not really an AK guy. Neither would really matter if you didn't have anything that could be connected to it that might act like a stock. See my response above


Not out $200 if you file under the amnesty Form 1. The rest of the AWB I have no idea

Sorry if any of this sounds dickish, or full on dickwad. Some of the crap regulations are very specific and understandable, other parts are plain mush. A lot of people are getting caught up in the weeds of easily understandable and addressable issues. It doesn't help that Mr. goofball and gadgets is spreading falsehoods, with a lawyer from the GOA no less. It's disappointing that they don't understand which part of the sky is falling

Not true, see my response above

BATF Ruling on pistol braces

PG.246/247

Since ATF says replacing import with US made parts can’t cure a 922r issue because “assembly” had already occurred on these import pistols, and by inference, registering them as SBR’s as is, is no issue, why wouldn’t applying that methodology to ban era rifles, where assembly had “already occurred” on all those evil rifles before they were ever restored by individuals to pre or post ban configurations during or after the 10 year AWB period?

Logic implies that if changing parts to US made cannot “cure” an 922r compliance issues, they cannot cause one either.

If assembly “already occurred” on those pistols, then the same applies on 922r rehab rifles, and those rifles should be no less compliant restored to a pre ban or post ban configuration than an imported pistol with a brace (however and whenever it was put on the pistol) and registered as a short barreled rifle using the same logic.

The same logic also implies you would not even have to ensure the less than 10 imported parts requirement was met.

Given the language, only one of two things can be true:

1. 922r rehab rifles (rifles restored to original configuration from the imported configuration) are illegal. OR…

2. They are legal regardless of foreign content once imported and transferred, and then reconfigured to their original design (I.E pistol grip vs thumb-hole stock) by the end user, and everyone that spent all that money wasted a lot of it trying to ensure a compliant parts count only the manufacturers/importers were required to meet, and the they entire cottage industry of “compliance parts” was a load of BS. And that modifying a rifle to an otherwise legal, non NFA configuration is not “Manufacturing” or “Assembling”, and never was a violation of 922r.

Note that neither 18 USC 922r, NOR 27 CFR 178.39 Uses nothing but the word “assemble” and does not use the common catch all “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade” from the NFA.

Thus it would appear that ATF has defined the word “assemble” as occurring only when the firearm is originally made, and does not include fitting of parts, new or used, that do not result in the making of an NFA weapon.

So if you remove the brace you must destroy it to be legal, but if you replace your 10″ upper with a 16″ upper and KEEP the 10″ upper, you are just fine right? There is no logic like BATFE logic.

IF you have a friction fit, non adjustable brace, or a KAK blade that uses a set screw, if you replace your plain buffer tube with a carbine buffer tube designed for adjustable stocks, it would be impossible to “reinstall” the brace. I’m sure BATFE would accept that right?

Take your pick everyone. BATF is going to rule against you no matter what you do.

And at "their discretion", too. Because subjective discretion helps citizens to navigate towards legal compliance.

I'm stealing the shit out of that.

Serious question based on the wording & watching the videos.

If you remove the brace, flatten it in a vise or cut it into pieces therefore rendering it unable to be reattached to the firearm you're in the clear? Everything else remains as is, just a naked buffer tube? And now it's a pistol again?

I understand a buffer tube is necessary for the firearm to function as it's designed.

A brace is a stock so now a pistol is an SBR.
No brace no longer an SBR so back to a pistol?

Sorry if I'm being repetitive just trying to sound this out

Brace may be a factor along with others to determine if you built an SBR. A brace alone doesn't mean it's an SBR.

That is correct by every interpretation I have seen or read. But I would way until the last day if that is the action you choose, which as far as we know right now will be May 31st. ATF said the rule will drop Jan 31'st

Were I to do this and the buffer tube was a carbine tube that can accept a stock and not a plain tube, I suppose that could be an issue, but nobody has asked that question yet.

It can be. ATF is already waving the "constructive possession" doctrine in our Faces. That why they are demanding disposal/destruction.

AFT: "Must destroy brace."

Also AFT: "Nothing in this rule bans “stabilizing braces” or the use of “stabilizing braces” on pistols..."

Hardly a day has gone by since the rule was announced that we don't learn something new.

The gist of this lawyer's opinion is that IF you choose to register the firearm as an NFA weapon, once you submit the paperwork keep your mouth shut. Have no communications with the feds. NONE. Or you could be handing them info outside the scope of the statutes that prevent the from prosecuting you when you submit the form 1, allowing them to build a case or start an investigation against you.

All of these firearms attorneys really need to have a summit and not only get on the same page, but share the info instead of constantly scooping each other. We have enough problems as it is.

https://youtu.be/YlKido0S1-k