SilencerTalk

Sound Suppressor Discussion
It is currently Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:51 am

All times are UTC-04:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:25 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 21
I did a search and didn't find very current threads on these two questions.

I'm considering the CZ Scorpion Evo pistol. I would like to add a folding arm brace of some flavor, but am unclear on the legality of the following two points:

1) Did the ATF TRULY give consent to shouldering arm braces, as inefficient as that may prove to be in providing any added stability? I find the verbage of their so-called 'reversal' decision very slippery.

2) If you add a folding arm brace, are you required to meet 922(r) compliance first? I don't see how it would qualify as any of the enumerated parts.

The eventual goal would be to form 1 the thing and get it good with 922(r) regs, but is the above lawful. Naturally the rule of "don't trust anyone on the internet" applies, but is anyone aware of a decision letter on question 2, or strong clarification of the decision letter referenced in 1?


Top
   
BulletFlight for Android
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:55 pm
Posts: 983
TomServo wrote:
I did a search and didn't find very current threads on these two questions.

I'm considering the CZ Scorpion Evo pistol. I would like to add a folding arm brace of some flavor, but am unclear on the legality of the following two points:

1) Did the ATF TRULY give consent to shouldering arm braces, as inefficient as that may prove to be in providing any added stability? I find the verbage of their so-called 'reversal' decision very slippery.

2) If you add a folding arm brace, are you required to meet 922(r) compliance first? I don't see how it would qualify as any of the enumerated parts.

The eventual goal would be to form 1 the thing and get it good with 922(r) regs, but is the above lawful. Naturally the rule of "don't trust anyone on the internet" applies, but is anyone aware of a decision letter on question 2, or strong clarification of the decision letter referenced in 1?


ATF said incidental shouldering is fine.

I take that as, if it brushes up against your shoulder when you are shooting, is probably somewhat unavoidable and they won't be following you home and shooting your dogs.

Intentional shouldering and it would be considered an SBR. Also, ATF has furthered that and said if it has a "more than 13.5" length of pull, they don't like that either according to one of the manufacturers of the various brace companies.

So, if your plan is to throw on a pistol brace and shoot it from the shoulder to bypass NFA laws, my advice is "don't".

To answer your other question, 922 isn't required to install a pistol stabilizing brace because you're not changing anything.

SBR rules for 922 does apply.

_________________
I don't care what your chart says


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:46 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 21
Thank you, that makes much more sense. I was distrusting of other internet forums claiming shouldering was now fine. That means I'll have to wait for a stamp if I buy one, and by then I'll have saved enough to do the 922(r) parts swap anyway.

Honestly, I just wish I could get my AR-15 SBR into such a small package. Damn non-folding buffer-tube.... Oh well, that gives me another project to work on in the coming years (thanks to ATF wait times)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:23 am 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:55 pm
Posts: 983
I don't claim to know what atf is thinking any particular time of the day because I know they change their opinion more often than some people change their socks.

However, I was an FFL for nearly a decade and I have seen a thing or two in that time and I am probably more versed in that subject than many of the people who are making those claims.

Many people you'll hear on the internet saying "atf said it's OK to shoulder a pistol brace so we can bypass NFA laws" are only hearing what they want to hear and not thinking the whole concept through.

Further, Congress writes the laws and the whole SBR (shoulder fired) thing has been the law for going on 100 years now. ATF can't circumvent any of that, and that's not what that most recent determination letter said.

Here is the actual letter from the ATF if you're interested in reading it and making up your own mind about what it says. Skip the mole plants online and read their determination letter. It's pretty plain and to the point.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download

Actually, there is an adapter that allows you to fold the AR buffer tube, but obviously only folds when not in use. https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/s ... 71553.aspx

_________________
I don't care what your chart says


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 5:23 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:16 am
Posts: 21
Thanks for all the information, cirations included especially. You got me looking in the right direction. I found this product by Dead Foot Arms thar will let me fold my 9mm SBR AND shoot it folded:

https://deadfootarms.com/products/bcm-m ... t-folding/

This doesn't get me the super small package I could get out of an evo, but I can use my current SBR with no NFA, GCA, etc. entanglements. Plus, it'll save me a hell of a lot of money.

I have no interest in running afoul of the ATF or any other law enforcement agency, so I think I'll stay away from the 'brace' craze given the wording of the decision letter. I don't want to be the test case.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:35 pm 
Offline
Silent But Deadly
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:55 pm
Posts: 983
Yeah, I thought about sbr'ing my evo because I enjoy shooting it so much.

But I already have more than a half dozen stamps and decided not to involve ATF in my life any more than they already are.

My plan to add a stock involves getting a used carbine barrel and going the other way with it. No $200 extortion stamp, uhh I mean tax stamp needed.

_________________
I don't care what your chart says


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC-04:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zevdogs and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off | Load: 0.78 ]