ATF 23 SB Tactical Firearms Braces

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • 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!
  • pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/at...not-have-determination-letters/#axzz6epCRzebL


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEzFt7iYTLg&feature=emb_title

    Soooo.. He's sayin that "Chevron Deference" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference

    has the force of law.
    In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of Chevron deference, holding that only the agency interpretations reached through formal proceedings with the force of law, such as adjudications, or notice-and-comment rulemaking, qualify for Chevron deference, while those contained in opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, or other formats that do not carry the force of law are not warranted a Chevron deference.

    Just me. I thought the Marbury v Madison deference was authority.
     

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    I've been telling everyone for probably years now that none of these newer braces are covered by a determination letter, and that the ATF could declare them stocks without contradicting themselves at all. The other shoe is gonna drop when Biden is directing that agency, almost guaranteed.

    Plus side, for those of us heavy in SBRs, I am looking forward to the fire sales on uppers we're gonna see.
     

    jamesp15

    Active Member
    Jul 16, 2018
    420
    Southern PG
    If this were all to go through.. If a, friend, were to have a SBA4 on a pistol, would simply removing it and having just a buffer tube suffice as a pistol?
    and would said SBA4 on a RIFLE be OK?
     

    RuralRifleGuy

    Active Member
    Aug 16, 2018
    918
    Queenstown
    I’d say if it holds up that they are stocks and not braces approved by the ATF as marketed there’s a good chance of a suit against SB Tactical. Their boxes clearly state ATF Compliant.

    Good thing one of my pistols is becoming a 16” rifle and the other one is getting turned into an SBR. I’d be pissed if I had high hundreds or thousands of dollars into braces like I’ve seen some people.
     

    Attachments

    • A6577851-280E-42F5-96A4-B4A013369F2C.jpeg
      A6577851-280E-42F5-96A4-B4A013369F2C.jpeg
      46.7 KB · Views: 634

    erwos

    The Hebrew Hammer
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 25, 2009
    13,866
    Rockville, MD
    Sure, all of that is fine. But let's face it, AR pistols really only took off because the newer braces were so easily used as stocks. Going back to a bare buffer tube is not going to be appealing to most people. And that's not even considering all the non-AR "pistols" that were really only usable with a "brace".
     

    Lucca1

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 9, 2013
    1,002
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Does anyone have reference to a case where someone with an SB pistol brace was charged with or found guilty of possessing an unregistered SBR? I have searched but can find no examples.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Does anyone have reference to a case where someone with an SB pistol brace was charged with or found guilty of possessing an unregistered SBR? I have searched but can find no examples.

    Not yet. Because it was believed they were ATF compliant.......even by ATF.
     

    Nickberg500

    Ultimate Member
    Sep 20, 2019
    1,064
    North of Baltimore County
    I’d say if it holds up that they are stocks and not braces approved by the ATF as marketed there’s a good chance of a suit against SB Tactical. Their boxes clearly state ATF Compliant.



    Good thing one of my pistols is becoming a 16” rifle and the other one is getting turned into an SBR. I’d be pissed if I had high hundreds or thousands of dollars into braces like I’ve seen some people.
    SB has responded. It sounds like ATF is lying and posturing. We can't be complacent, ATF is very much in the wrong here:

    https://youtu.be/ZLMlT1y8Apo
     

    boothdoc

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 23, 2008
    5,133
    Frederick county
    Can’t you just take the brace off and be compliant? Just a buffer tube would be in place.
    Of course the brace would need to go away
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    The SBA4 is conspicuously missing from the list, but the packaging for one I examined also does not say a single word about "ATF compliant" or other similar claims.

    The problem is ATF now only approves accessories when mounted on a complete firearm, so send in a SBA3 on an AR with a successful brace determination, and they might disagree with it being a brace when used on an 870 a week later. The manufacturer would also have to include a long list of approved configurations, and users would need to track approved or denied configurations, along with the burden of preparing and submitting samples for examination.

    I saw Len Savage on Arfcom talking about how he recorded the tech branch chief threatening to reexamine items and make adverse determinations if Savage did not comply to their demands on unregulated conduct. So Savage submitted the tapes to the Office of Professional Responsibility.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,203
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom