View Full Version : ATF has re-interpreted how to measure (AR) pistol OAL in reference to AOW.
SA Friday
07-05-2019, 11:17
https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/07/05/atf-rescinds-prior-methods-to-measure-a-firearms-overall-length-when-equipped-with-a-stabilizing-brace/?sfns=mo&fbclid=IwAR2jMUX-kZrxAjHyZFPasXMh5LyEr3sluZuMF592ivQe3R0Ad3s7bkCwg5 E
These fucking morons... The ATF and the DEA interpreting laws is not fucking OK. The ATF opinion letter process is a god damned joke just as much as the DEA being able to add substances to the controlled substance act. [Mad]
Grant H.
07-05-2019, 20:34
Just another way for them to go after more folks in order to justify their existence.
Always remember, anyone in a bureaucratic fiefdom is always trying to justify why they have a job. ATF, DEA, EPA, REA, CPS, APS, etc... These fuckwits have to "prove" they need to have a job to their management, so they will find ways to create a "need" for themselves...
There may be a need for a team to manage certain things, but in order to gain more budget money, more people, and effectively increase their fiefdom, they must "prove" their worth.
How do that do that? Make mountains out of fucking mole hills and vilify those that run up against them...
I was under the impression that one couldn't add a vertical foregrip to a "pistol" once it had a short enough barrel to be considered a pistol in the first place. From my reading of the link, it sounded like there was an area over a certain OAL that was okay to attach vertical foregrips to pistols, and now that measurement has been shifted?
Zundfolge
07-05-2019, 22:58
I was under the impression that one couldn't add a vertical foregrip to a "pistol"...
This is what I thougth as well, which is why so many people put angled foregrips on their AR pistols because those are ok on Pistols.
Well, people just cant resist sending letters to the atf for clarification.. what do they expect?
Hope you're not drinking, cus this is very "the missile knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't":
https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download
I was under the impression that one couldn't add a vertical foregrip to a "pistol" once it had a short enough barrel to be considered a pistol in the first place. From my reading of the link, it sounded like there was an area over a certain OAL that was okay to attach vertical foregrips to pistols, and now that measurement has been shifted?
If you're familiar with the shockwave type of firearm grey area, that covers this vfg statement also. Once a pistol grows to over 26 inches but has a barrel length less than 16 inches it hits the same kind of grey area.
it slightly changes certain people's points of measurement when equipped with a brace. They were ignoring other atf letters to measure from those points to begin with though.
Basically some people were using a pistol buffer tube and extending the brace out as far as possible to get them to 26 inches so they could mount a vfg. This letter just says measure from the buffer tube end not the end of the brace.
So there's now an opening for a company to make brace capable a2 length pistol buffer tubes.
Great-Kazoo
07-06-2019, 13:22
So there's now an opening for a company to make brace capable a2 length pistol buffer tubes.
One could use an A-2 buffer tube, cut a spacer to have the tube use Carbine buffer and spring.
One could use an A-2 buffer tube, cut a spacer to have the tube use Carbine buffer and spring.
The ability to readily mount a stock is an issue. You have to plug off the screw hole in the tail of the tube with a two part epoxy or something
Great-Kazoo
07-06-2019, 17:13
The ability to readily mount a stock is an issue. You have to plug off the screw hole in the tail of the tube with a two part epoxy or something
allen head set screw using some j-b weld to keep from being unscrewed, with "normal" hand tools. $3. later you're gtg.
To be fair, people are exploiting loopholes in the regulations that will be short lived. Much like advertising tax-loopholes that the government forgot. Sure, you can exploit it for awhile. But there's not a lot of "legs" especially when you (shooters) point it out to them.
E.g. "Arm braces" that can be fired from the shoulder like a regular stock. Adding vertical fore-grips, still asserting it to be a pistol. Whether or not the NFA rules are BS, when people go to great lengths to exploit boundaries, they are exactly one political cycle away from possessing "illegal" unregistered short-barreled rifles or AOW's. - or less, as Donnie is only pro-ego, and doesn't have true mores or political positions, he can shift in less than a day to bleeding heart if enough positive sentiment is introduced.
Bitching about the original law seems more justified than bitching about them closing "creative interpretations" around the intention of the law, which I have trouble getting behind. It's a lot like people being enraged if CO clarified that "parts kits are still magazines, duh". Um, yeah...duh. You all already knew it, you were just hoping that personally invented "magic" rules will keep you out of trouble, but the reality is prosecution is selective, and independent of the law. Even before the letter, if the ATF wanted you [Pretend, say, you were trafficking guns out of Windsor), they would've prosecuted you with a vertical fore-grip anyway, and it wouldn't matter if you were waving an old letter around. 99% of the time, you'd take a plea bargain, and in the 1% of the time you took it to a jury, they would convict you in concert with all the other charges brought, and ignore the letter.
ATF letters are not "magic" get out of jail free cards. Your fate is entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and a judge, and if they make you look bad, they don't give two shits, especially if the law can be argued clear enough on its own.
If the ATF has a tape measure on your gun, you are likely in trouble regardless of this rule. Just dont give the ATF an excuse to measure your gun to add on charges. If you've done nothing else and dont have a record, please ignorance. You likely will not be arrested and if you're not a dick, they will educate you, have you fix the issue and send you on your way.
To be fair, people are exploiting loopholes in the regulations that will be short lived. Much like advertising tax-loopholes that the government forgot. Sure, you can exploit it for awhile. But there's not a lot of "legs" especially when you (shooters) point it out to them.
E.g. "Arm braces" that can be fired from the shoulder like a regular stock. Adding vertical fore-grips, still asserting it to be a pistol. Whether or not the NFA rules are BS, when people go to great lengths to exploit boundaries, they are exactly one political cycle away from possessing "illegal" unregistered short-barreled rifles or AOW's. - or less, as Donnie is only pro-ego, and doesn't have true mores or political positions, he can shift in less than a day to bleeding heart if enough positive sentiment is introduced.
Bitching about the original law seems more justified than bitching about them closing "creative interpretations" around the intention of the law, which I have trouble getting behind. It's a lot like people being enraged if CO clarified that "parts kits are still magazines, duh". Um, yeah...duh. You all already knew it, you were just hoping that personally invented "magic" rules will keep you out of trouble, but the reality is prosecution is selective, and independent of the law. Even before the letter, if the ATF wanted you [Pretend, say, you were trafficking guns out of Windsor), they would've prosecuted you with a vertical fore-grip anyway, and it wouldn't matter if you were waving an old letter around. 99% of the time, you'd take a plea bargain, and in the 1% of the time you took it to a jury, they would convict you in concert with all the other charges brought, and ignore the letter.
ATF letters are not "magic" get out of jail free cards. Your fate is entirely in the hands of a prosecutor and a judge, and if they make you look bad, they don't give two shits, especially if the law can be argued clear enough on its own.
This is true of anything, though. Particularly as concerns guns in general. Tomorrow they could come out with a no-grandfathering, national registration scheme. Should current owners also plan for that or attempt to take that into consideration? Of course not. It's absurd, just like every other time they try to stay within the letter of the law and become criminals in potential.
The problem is: there is no actual rule of law, ability to trust that one can follow the law and it won't change in an instant in interpretation and application, or even plan to follow the law since it is subject to arbitrary change.
As such, people are left with either:
1) Giving up entirely
2) Planning to be a felon, whether in potential or actuality
This is true of anything, though. Particularly as concerns guns in general. Tomorrow they could come out with a no-grandfathering, national registration scheme. Should current owners also plan for that or attempt to take that into consideration? Of course not. It's absurd, just like every other time they try to stay within the letter of the law and become criminals in potential.
The problem is: there is no actual rule of law, ability to trust that one can follow the law and it won't change in an instant in interpretation and application, or even plan to follow the law since it is subject to arbitrary change.
As such, people are left with either:
1) Giving up entirely
2) Planning to be a felon, whether in potential or actuality
I'm not sure you captured the point. I wasn't talking about the possibility of new legislation. I'm talking (in any regard) when clear law has been made, and people try to subsist off of technical loopholes that the law (relatively clearly) intend to prohibit, they really aren't in a position to bitch much when agencies say "Uh, duh, yeah you obviously can't do that". If applied consistently with the original intent, they don't have a leg to stand on with the agency review. However, their complaint should rest with the original law that was passed.
For an extreme example:
If there is a law saying consensual boinking with anyone under the age of eighteen is still illegal; and you boink someone who is clearly around eighteen, was adopted as an orphan with an indeterminable birthdate, but their "estimated" birthdate shows them slightly under eighteen, it doesn't give you an exemption from the law. You can't successfully argue that because their true birth-date is indeterminable, you somehow have a special exemption from the law. Likewise, you can't get terribly pissed that the law didn't have a subpart that says "...including anyone under the age of eighteen even if their true birthdate cannot be ascertained and their documented birthdate is simply a guess."
That's the nature of the technicalities that people are trying to "live within" these firearm laws. We're not talking about the possibility of new laws, this has been in existence since 1934.
This is how 27 C.F.R. ?479 (e.g. NFA) defines pistol:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
So, you all are living in a "technical loophole" that doesn't ACTUALLY exist in reality, no different than declaring the fact that an individual's birthday is unknown somehow exempts statutory crimes against that same person.
An AR-15 pistol has one grip - in front of the stock, oops, I mean "uh, Arm Brace" , and the addition of a vertical grip would require the use of two hands to fire it, since any hand on the vertical grip cannot reach the fire control components.
OOOOPS. That's wha I'm talking 'bout.
*MIC DROP* [gohome]
bobbyfairbanks
07-07-2019, 20:15
FUDS are annoying
TEAMRICO
07-07-2019, 20:17
Who here has actually had an ATF agent tap them on the shoulder while out shooting holding a tape measure?
sellersm
07-07-2019, 21:26
Someone will be along to post about the Freedom shop raid, or whatever they were called...Oh wait, this isn?t that other site.
Three letter agencies have gotten a pass for a long time to do what they want, with little pushback and accountability. It?s no wonder folks take whatever freedoms they can (what some may call loopholes).
The ATF, in this instance certain agent(s), just keeps exposing themselves as schizophrenic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is how 27 C.F.R. ?479 (e.g. NFA) defines pistol:
Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
So, you all are living in a "technical loophole" that doesn't ACTUALLY exist in reality, no different than declaring the fact that an individual's birthday is unknown somehow exempts statutory crimes against that same person.
An AR-15 pistol has one grip - in front of the stock, oops, I mean "uh, Arm Brace" , and the addition of a vertical grip would require the use of two hands to fire it, since any hand on the vertical grip cannot reach the fire control components.
OOOOPS. That's wha I'm talking 'bout.
*MIC DROP*
By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.
By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.
Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?
If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.
And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.
But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.
Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?
If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.
And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.
But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.
But clearly the vast majority of the population isn't interested in scrupulously following the law, the bureaucrats charged with enforcing it aren't interested in making a federal case out of it, and the legislators who could amend the law aren't interested in doing so.
So basically everyone's lazy all the way around.
I expect that these sorts of discrepancies between the law as written and the law as enforced are probably all over the place, and probably in a lot of situations much scarier than the legal definition of what constitutes a pistol.
Aloha_Shooter
07-08-2019, 13:31
Not only that, but when one scrupulously follows the letter of the law and then that law is changed, why on earth are they being castigated for following the letter of the law?
If the intention was to do X, the law reads Y, then Y is the only thing which can be adhered to, for X was never specified.
And as such, the rule of law becomes one of whim, which is to say, void.
But, that's apparently not clear enough for those who place the cart before the ox, or have ATF Special Agent badges.
But clearly the vast majority of the population isn't interested in scrupulously following the law, the bureaucrats charged with enforcing it aren't interested in making a federal case out of it, and the legislators who could amend the law aren't interested in doing so.
So basically everyone's lazy all the way around.
I expect that these sorts of discrepancies between the law as written and the law as enforced are probably all over the place, and probably in a lot of situations much scarier than the legal definition of what constitutes a pistol.
I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.
It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".
Maybe we could elect people who promise to fight for our interests, and have a piece of Charmin signed by dead dudes on which to build the argument for such an attack on the incorrectness of said regulations?
Or we could just realize the truth: we are all criminals as soon as "they" want us to be, whether or not we attempt to follow the law as it is today (but maybe not tomorrow). Do with that what one will.
When a person/organism runs into an obstacle, it finds ways over, through, or around it.
When governments legislate away natural law/human nature, someone please let me know. [Dunno]
I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.
It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".
I have yet to witness a single person strapping an arm brace around their forearm.
The makers of these braces knew exactly what they were selling and whom their inteded customer was.
I just don't understand why some customers decided to press their luck with a vertical grip.
It is all just pointless confusion, since every firearm regulation since the signing of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
It is all just pointless confusion, since every firearm regulation since the signing of the Constitution is unconstitutional.
How well is that working for us?
By this standard, any handgun that is sold today is in violation of that rule because since the advent of Jeff Cooper and The Modern Technique, no one outside of bullseye shooters uses a one-handed grip when shooting a pistol, and the companies that make these guns know that.
While that argument can be made, the definition doesn't include or prohibit the use of two hands, it refers to designs that require two hands. The fact that almost everyone uses a two handed grip on a pistol doesn't mean they are designed for it. That argument becomes void when one attaches a vertical foregrip. PS to earlier poster: I'm the furthest thing from a "FUDD". Ignorance exists on all sides of an issue, don't be blind to your own. I especially disagree with the 86' NFA. That said, when the original was passed in '34, why was it passed? Sensationalized stories involving Thompson submachine guns and "gangsters" played a significant role. Imagine anyone in '38 arguing a Thompson with a stock removed suddenly was a pistol. When shooters far are wide made "creative interpretations" so...common, publicized, etc., It is a matter of time before it blows up in our own face. Inevitably, we bad actor will eventually make use of these false loopholes.... What is the ramifications then? Can you do a 180 and say "they've always been illegal new laws won't help". Shooters have to manage their own public relations. Unfortunately, because the broad association is so varied, the excesses of the few will result in the loss for the many.
People bitch about agency review clarifying things to be illegal that are obviously within the intent of their respective laws. Do you REALLY want bureuocracy to become even more dense, ala hitchhikers if the Galaxy? Do you really want EVERY possible minute detail spelled out in law? Thats what that position unknowingly advocates for. Do you want a 2020 NFA act? There's a difference between being a FUDD, and being a pragmatist that isn't hedonistic.
[snip]
Inevitably, we bad actor will eventually make use of these false loopholes.... What is the ramifications then? Can you do a 180 and say "they've always been illegal new laws won't help". Shooters have to manage their own public relations. Unfortunately, because the broad association is so varied, the excesses of the few will result in the loss for the many.
[snip]
I've always taken the view that if a mass murderer used an illegal firearm vs. any other means, only the brainwashed/mentally ill would focus on the weapon. In that case, there is very little PR that can be done.
Someone can use a firearm to murder a dozen kids and it's wall-to-wall coverage. FOR MONTHS. With annual anniversary celebrations and occasional reenactors. Does the media ever report the amount of gun control and list the rules/law broken? No, we just get "we need more gun control." Yeah, we aren't competing with that PR.
I also doubt that these rules decrease criminality, number of casualties, or are effective in any way. Does a VFG, on any configuration/classification, make a firearm more deadly? Does it make it more/less likely to be used in a crime? The gangsters NFA was supposed to stop simply didn't care. Modern bangers don't care. Mass murdering monsters don't care. Only people with something to lose, who would never do these things (us), care.
These technical rules are shit and that is why a lot of people don't obey them. The further the rules/laws deviate from shared values, the less compliance the kings will get. They can either demand compliance for authority's sake or change the rules. The rule by fiat method of these letter is even worse at decreasing legitimacy because it criminalizes configurations that were previously permitted by the same letters. Am I supposed to subscribe to every opinion letter and review each firearm I own to ensure compliance? How do I do that?
NFA was created from moral panic to solve the consequences from another moral panic (prohibition). Funny how society recognized one was bad policy and the other wasn't.
SA Friday
07-09-2019, 13:49
The ability to readily mount a stock is an issue. You have to plug off the screw hole in the tail of the tube with a two part epoxy or something
Nope. 2004 ATF "opinion letter" on that too. The tube is irrelevant to whether it's a pistol or rifle, and the ability to add a stock isn't relevant either. The SB A3 and A4 models of braces use standard carbine buffer tubes.
I would argue that the majority of the population isn't interested in finding new ways to circumvent the legal limitations. Those who are generate interest from the bureaucrats in closing down on those fringes and loopholes, particularly when they advertise their ingenuity in trying to find loopholes. It's not going to be worth the hassle and effort for bureaucrats to write new regulations to take care of one or two fringe cases but they will perceive value in writing those regulations when they see YouTube videos and blogs all over the place for dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of people to circumvent the existing regulations and that will lead to more absurdities.
It's pretty damned clear that many people buying "arm braces" for "pistols" are really trying to get SBRs without going through the registration and regulation. A lot of the people talking about it online aren't even trying to pretend that they intend to shoot these AR pistols as pistols so who is really surprised that the bureaucrats are trying to address it? The ones who really need arm braces will be the ones ending up suffering as the tools they need get restricted or banned. I'd rather see a full-frontal attack on the notion of registering or limiting/banning SBRs than all these videos and blogs on attaching "arm braces" to "pistols".
There is another reason for having an AR pistol.
In CO the law for carrying a concealed weapon reads:
(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or
The annotations to the law include:
The words "about the person" means sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use. People in Interest of R.J.A., 38 Colo. App. 346, 556 P.2d 491 (1976).
"Concealed" means placed out of sight so as not to be discernible or apparent by ordinary observation. People ex rel. O.R., 220 P.3d 949 (Colo. App. 2008).
This, to me, means if you are say hiking you can legally put an AR15 pistol (handgun) in a backpack if you have permit. It also reads to me that you cannot put a registered SBR in said backpack because that would be on your person and not readily discernible by ordinary observation.
I don't want to derail the thread, but I think most people who think they're going to hike around with an AR pistol in a backpack don't actually hike, or have much wilderness experience at all. So while it may be often discussed online amongst people who like to pretend they are preppers or know what they are doing in the woods, I suspect hardly anyone is actually doing that.
I don't want to derail the thread, but I think most people who think they're going to hike around with an AR pistol in a backpack don't actually hike, or have much wilderness experience at all. So while it may be often discussed online amongst people who like to pretend they are preppers or know what they are doing in the woods, I suspect hardly anyone is actually doing that.
Well, in a backpack, you are covered going into Denver or Boulder as they are pistols and covered by a CCW.
Sure. Good luck in your travels.
[snip]
Now that is interesting. I would almost delete that post as not to inspire any ideas.
I'd never think of that. The time it would take for me to deploy an AR from a backpack kind of nullifies the thought. But an interesting work around.
I think Irv is getting to the point that is a theoretical argument, but in practice, probably employed by a grand total of two people, and they both work security at area malls, and they probably pack AR-15 pistols in their gym bags in case they ever we're to actually use that gym membership they've been paying for all these years.
Outside of that, I really doubt anyone is CCW ar-15 pistols/psuedo sbr. As far as carrying it in a backpack, what's the difference between carrying it in a gun case strapped to your back? Why would you argue one classifies as CCW and one falls under mere transport. A more practical explanation (that people do use) is the vehicle exemption to loaded pistols kept in vehicles. While I would debate the practicality of a car AR-15 (for access)many do it.
That also leads to another point: if a bad actor fired an AR-15 pistol/psudeo sbr from a vehicle, what happens to that exemption many people enjoy....
I think Irv is getting to the point that is a theoretical argument, but in practice, probably employed by a grand total of two people, and they both work security at area malls, and they probably pack AR-15 pistols in their gym bags in case they ever we're to actually use that gym membership they've been paying for all these years.
Outside of that, I really doubt anyone is CCW ar-15 pistols/psuedo sbr. As far as carrying it in a backpack, what's the difference between carrying it in a gun case strapped to your back? Why would you argue one classifies as CCW and one falls under mere transport. A more practical explanation (that people do use) is the vehicle exemption to loaded pistols kept in vehicles. While I would debate the practicality of a car AR-15 (for access)many do it.
That is 100% the point I was trying to make.
I will say that I've been known to road trip with a loaded AR pistol in a back pack when traveling out of state. I will also say that when I spent three weeks in Florida last year, carrying that heavy ass backpack full of AR pistol from the VRBO room to the car and back every single day got very old, very quick, and I'm not sure that I'll do that again. If the world starts to end while I'm working out of state, I really feel like having an AR with me will realistically make a negligible difference in the amount of time that I live. We're straying off topic again though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.