Interesting video for those so inclined to watch. Not all the way through myself but what I have seen is that there will be resolutions to stop this as expected. Hopefully with some teeth.

I'll try to come back later and add notes tonight

Do resolutions ever have teeth?

Question for the experts here on the Outdoors board: from what point is the barrel measured? I have a friend who has a Rock River Arms AR-15. He measured the barrel and it seems to be 15.5". The website for Rock River Arms lists the barrel length as 16".

Texmid said:

---

Question for the experts here on the Outdoors board: from what point is the barrel measured? I have a friend who has a Rock River Arms AR-15. He measured the barrel and it seems to be 15.5". The website for Rock River Arms lists the barrel length as 16".

---

Here is the way the ATF calls it out... https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/undefined/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-chapter-2/download



More info: https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2016/12/firearms-barrel-length-and-overall-length-know-the-law/

Thank you.

You're welcome. The bottom link in my post is actually a lot more informative than the strict law by the ATF.

Texmid said:

---

Question for the experts here on the Outdoors board: from what point is the barrel measured? I have a friend who has a Rock River Arms AR-15. He measured the barrel and it seems to be 15.5". The website for Rock River Arms lists the barrel length as 16".

---

Is it installed? If so, how did he measure the barrel? A portion of the barrel seats into the upper threading and is covered by the threading and barrel nut. Measure from the front face of the upper (behind the threading) to the very end of the muzzle device threading.

Willing to bet it's actually 16", I'd imagine (just a guess) there'd be a lot of liability issues if RRA listed it as a 16" and it wasn't.

ShouldastayedataTm said:

---

It is political grandstanding. No different than the bill that was submitted to repeal the NFA all together. Even if the bill miraculously passes both houses it will get vetoed and there is not enough support to overturn a veto. The resolutions have about as many teeth as a 2 hour old baby. As much as I hate to say the ATF is winning. Look at New York, California, etc. Despite court rulings saying otherwise the gun control continues with no consequences except for legal owners getting screwed.

---

I completely agree as to the grandstanding by all the usual characters. However the ATF isnt winning anything. This will play out a bit differently than the issue with the states trying to weasel and worm their way around recent SC rulings because it doesnt involve a govt authority issuing any licenses/etc as it pertains to actually obtaining a firearm or accessory. A federal court is going to slap this down in the very near future. It'll go just like bump stocks which had woefully less support and legal backbone.

I emailed all 3 of my CO Senators last week, asking for clarification and opposing the ATF's overreach. I have Lauren Boebert (R), Michael Bennet (D), and John Hickenlooper (D). Of the 3, only the Democratic Senators have responded to me. Bennet sent an automated reply "Thanks, we will consider your opinion on the matter" etc. And I just received a reply from Hickenlooper (see below) that appears to try and answer the question. I am disappointed to have heard nothing from Boebert's office, other than auto-reply confirming receipt of my email. It doesn't surprise me at all from her, though...

Hickenlooper's response, I thought you guys may be interested in reading. It appears that some of our lovely Senators are seeing this ATF rule through a drastically different lens than many of us are. It also appears, as I have always known/suspected, that my opinion means absolutely jack crap to anyone up there.


"Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding new regulations issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). We always appreciate hearing from Coloradans, as it helps us better represent our great state in the United States Senate.

The ATF's newly announced rule clarifies that when individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles. These include taxation and registration requirements, as well as background checks for all transfers (including private transfers). This does not apply to the use of stabilizing braces that are designed and intended for individuals with disabilities.

Senators Cruz and Lankford introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) Joint Resolution of Disapproval last year that would have prohibited the ATF from implementing this rule. That resolution was not brought for a vote, and expired at the end of the year. Please know we will keep your thoughts in mind should it be reintroduced this congress. It is important that we strike the appropriate balance between protecting our Second Amendment rights to bear arms, and protecting our communities from gun violence."

Sounds very similar to what I received. Roy's office sent a generic message stating that they are monitoring the situation and recognize that it turns millions of law abiding citizens into felons overnight. Calls it an egregious attack on the 2nd Amendment and unconstitutional overreach. From there, it states that they will continue to monitor and fight any legislation that comes on the House Floor. Funny enough, it even says that it's a generic email due to the volume of emails the office receives.

Cornyn's office followed up with an email. First paragraph is about Uvalde. The rest is about mental health, I support the 2nd Amendment, I was a judge and understand how important it is, etc. Towards the end it mentions LTC reciprocity, and he will work towards legislation to repeal the brace order. My guess, is that we could all compare this email and we would each have the same one.

Haven't heard back from Cruz's office.

cupofjoe04 said:

---

The ATF's newly announced rule clarifies that when individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles. These include taxation and registration requirements, as well as background checks for all transfers (including private transfers). No it doesn't. Their actual published clarification states the opposite. Waiting until after 40 million have been sold is attempting to make law through enforcement.

This does not apply to the use of stabilizing braces that are designed and intended for individuals with disabilities. News to me. How does that process work?

Senators Cruz and Lankford introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) Joint Resolution of Disapproval last year that would have prohibited the ATF from implementing this rule. That resolution was not brought for a vote, and expired at the end of the year. Please know we will keep your thoughts in mind should it be reintroduced this congress. Liar It is important that we strike the appropriate balance between protecting our Second Amendment rights to bear arms, and protecting our communities from gun violence." Bull****

---

Those are pretty much my thoughts.

They are just painting lipstick on the pig because they need a date for the prom.

The thing is, this is low hanging fruit that they can grab to make it harder to own a certain category of scary black rifle. All because some morons in the thirties forgot to take SBRs out of the idiotic NFA law after handguns were removed from the legislation. These rifles are no more dangerous and in need of "regulation" than any other rifle, they're just easier for the gun control nut jobs to attack thanks to the NFA. The gun control lobby and Democrats know that the average liberal voter is really stupid and will fall for the gun violence narratives without applying a single ounce of critical thought. Democrats and their gun control sycophants are pure evil.

Eliminatus said:

---

Interesting video for those so inclined to watch. Not all the way through myself but what I have seen is that there will be resolutions to stop this as expected. Hopefully with some teeth.

I'll try to come back later and add notes tonight

---

Thanks for posting. There is some really good points and information in there.

And then, there was Boebert... I still cringe every time she talks. She really added nothing of value to this conversation and tried to pepper in too many jokes and one-liners so it sounded like a High Schooler running for Student Government.

Let's say I might know someone who might own a mares leg pistol. Is that considered an SBR now?

lp01 said:

---

Cornyn's office followed up with an email. First paragraph is about Uvalde. The rest is about mental health, I support the 2nd Amendment, I was a judge and understand how important it is, etc. Towards the end it mentions LTC reciprocity, and he will work towards legislation to repeal the brace order. My guess, is that we could all compare this email and we would each have the same one.

Haven't heard back from Cruz's office.

---

Received the exact same response from Cornyn.
Also have not received a response from Cruz. But I expect it to be a slightly stronger worded canned response with no follow through.

Sorry, that was supposed to say Rep's & Sen's. Good catch

How would a Ruger PC Charger fall into this law. It's already manufactured as a pistol.

So a mini roni Glock conversion kit without a Glock in it is just a kit, not a firearm. My friend has one with a brace so he's okay to leave it as is?

Wheatables02 said:

---

So a mini roni Glock conversion kit without a Glock in it is just a kit, not a firearm. My friend has one with a brace so he's okay to leave it as is?

---

Most of what I've seen says if the ATF considers it a braced SBR, remove the parts that they don't like for now and don't store them together.

BenderRodriguez said:

---

The 16" barrel length restriction was created because short guns were "easier to conceal".

A 16" barreled bullpup and a 10.5" AR with a brace are the exact same length.

One requires no tax stamp, and the other will make you a felon without one soon. Because "easily concealed rifles/shotguns" are "dangerous".

This insanity will only stop if people stop complying with idiotic laws and stop voting for people who support idiotic laws.

---

The 16" bullpup can't be shouldered....as if that means a damn thing. I guess shouldering a weapon is what kills people.

BenderRodriguez said:

---

92Ag95 said:

---

BenderRodriguez said:

---

The 16" barrel length restriction was created because short guns were "easier to conceal".

A 16" barreled bullpup and a 10.5" AR with a brace are the exact same length.

One requires no tax stamp, and the other will make you a felon without one soon. Because "easily concealed rifles/shotguns" are "dangerous".

This insanity will only stop if people stop complying with idiotic laws and stop voting for people who support idiotic laws.

---

The 16" bullpup can't be shouldered....as if that means a damn thing. I guess shouldering a weapon is what kills people.

---

Uh.

Wat?

---

nm...I was thinking of something else.

Here is an interesting approach to the new pistol brace "rule". Might some of the lawsuits look to it. Basically force the government to grandfather all the braces already out there in the wild? Had not heard this thought or seen this anywhere yet.

Not only that, but braces aren't serialized. How do they know what is and isn't grandfathered?

Hows this for a plan of action:

- get new (rifle length) upper for pistol in a caliber ive wanted anyway.
- put pistol length upper in rubbermade tub in garage (read: not near brace)
- wait & see what happens in courts, enjoy fun new caliber in the meantime

Decent plan or stoooopid?

My understanding is that this would work. Even if you wanted to keep the brace on it with a 16" or longer barrel, that should suffice.