At pistol brace rules vs other firearms

[H2oVento 64]

After scouring the internterwebs for many minuets, I found nothing on how the new ATF rules will effect other firearms. As others are not pistols and not considered rifles. Just like to start conversations. I am not looking for legal advice 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

If you mean non-NFA other firearms, it will have no impact at all. The first test to see if the brace re-classification applies is whether the firearm is less than 26". That means all non-NFA firearms are out of scope.

[Jon K 32]

I thought they were just going to make them illegal to own, so it must be removed from an other and destroyed?

[H2oVento 64]

2 hours ago, Jon K said:

I thought they were just going to make them illegal to own, so it must be removed from an other and destroyed?

No you can still own them if they fit the new " guidelines" they want to put into place. They just make shit up as they go

[ESB 247]

It depends.  The new guidelines determine if a brace is a brace or a stock.  1) If they say all braces are considered braces unless they meet the criteria in the guidelines, then it won't effect Non-NFA Others.  or 2)If they say all Braces are considered Stocks unless determined to be braces by the criteria to be stocks, then it would effect Non-NFA Others.  It sounds like it will be option 1, but no one knows for sure.  It would be a shit show if they tried option 2, but when has that stopped them.  

[PK90 3,570]

Let's face it, nobody uses a brace as a brace. It is used as a stock 99.9% of the time. Your non-NFA Firearms will become SBSs. The pistols will remain pistols but with no brace.

[Jon K 32]

3 hours ago, PK90 said:

Let's face it, nobody uses a brace as a brace. It is used as a stock 99.9% of the time. Your non-NFA Firearms will become SBSs. The pistols will remain pistols but with no brace.

Why can't we just remove the stabilizer, doesn't change anything in so far as the other is suppose to be a 2 handed weapon anyway.

[ESB 247]

  

49 minutes ago, Jon K said:

Why can't we just remove the stabilizer, doesn't change anything in so far as the other is suppose to be a 2 handed weapon anyway.

 

Correct.  If they were to say that Braces are now considered Stocks for Non-NFA Others, you would just have to take them off, before the law/ruling whatever went into effect.  That way you can say it never had a stock on it.  A Non-NFA Other is still legal as long as it has a VFG, is over 26" OAL, and does not have a stock on it.    

 

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Based on the proposed rules, anything over 26" is excluded from their points system. This means that there is no assessment of the brace and it would not be considered. 

However, the rules do mention some "others" by name I think 12g ones like the TAC 14 and braces were a no go. 

[PK90 3,570]

2 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

Based on the proposed rules, anything over 26" is excluded from their points system. This means that there is no assessment of the brace and it would not be considered.

Sooooo, a pistol over 26" can have a brace?

[ESB 247]

  

29 minutes ago, PK90 said:

Sooooo, a pistol over 26" can have a brace?

 

Maybe not.  They are looking to change the definition of a rifle to anything with a stabilizing brace.   See 9:53 into this video.  

Will Removing Your Pistol Brace Make Any Difference With the ATF? - YouTube

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

18 hours ago, PK90 said:

Sooooo, a pistol over 26" can have a brace?

I beleive they say a pistol over 26" cannot have a brace.. which is why the 26" limit was imposed. I beleive the rule reasoned that even with a brace it would be too heavy to operate with one hand. 

My response Is about non-nfa others, which are not mentioned with respect to this limitation.