New Adjustable Pistol Brace Legality Questions

[apbrian112]

Hey guys,

Didn't see anything posted in regards to the newer style of pistol braces coming out that utilize a standard 6 position receiver extension; and wanted to double check their legality here in CA before spending money on them. I couldn't find anything on why these wouldn't be ok but just wanted to confirm.

https://www.gearheadworks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=25

https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sba3/

[munkeeboi]

I’d personally avoid anything a standard stock would work on, but others can discuss the legality

[hermosabeach]

Agreed - if it straps or fits on your arm... it’s still a shade of grey

A rifle extension tube.... sounds bad. Constructive possession grey area.

[dommypls]

A buffer tube is acceptable to use for a pistol build. There was a correspondence letter between the ATF and a member of the NFA group on facebook that stated such.

[Nor*Cal]

I disagree with the first two replies. I believe both of those a legal in CA although I believe CA still does not allow you to shoulder any pistol brace.

I like the Tailhook braces. I'm going to buy one for my AR pistol, just not sure if it will be the Mod 1 or Mod 2. Leaning towards the Mod 1 because I like that it is made of aluminum.

[Jay-lee]

Didn't the ATF rule that shouldering a pistol brace is acceptable? The only issue I'd see in CA is that the brace retracts and collapses which is a no-go. So my opinion would be yes you can have it but it would have to be riveted/welded in a fixed position. But I'm no lawyer and who can navigate these bull**** laws anyways?

[bajadan]

Didn't the ATF rule that shouldering a pistol brace is acceptable?

Yes, But this is California. Would tread carefully with arm braces. They are really pushing the envelope now since Sig brace hit market.

[Nor*Cal]

Didn't the ATF rule that shouldering a pistol brace is acceptable? The only issue I'd see in CA is that the brace retracts and collapses which is a no-go. So my opinion would be yes you can have it but it would have to be riveted/welded in a fixed position. But I'm no lawyer and who can navigate these bull**** laws anyways?

Yes, the ATF did say that shouldering was okay but I thought I read that CA said no. I could very well be wrong.

As for the adjustable brace, what CA law makes it a no go? There is no "featureless" pistol when it comes to AR style pistols that these braces are designed for. And other similar pistols that have the magazine outside the pistol grip.

But I am by no means an expert on these subjects. Would like to hear other opinions.

[RickD427]

Agreed - if it straps or fits on your arm... it’s still a shade of grey

A rifle extension tube.... sounds bad. Constructive possession grey area.

The real danger point is California law regarding SBR's and the definition of a rifle.

California law doesn't specifically speak to arm braces. But if the brace gives you the ability to fire from the shoulder, then you're open to the argument that your brace is really a stock and your weapon therefore is a SBR. It's the employment of the brace that causes the problem.

[RickD427]

Yes, the ATF did say that shouldering was okay but I thought I read that CA said no. I could very well be wrong.

As for the adjustable brace, what CA law makes it a no go? There is no "featureless" pistol when it comes to AR style pistols that these braces are designed for. And other similar pistols that have the magazine outside the pistol grip.

But I am by no means an expert on these subjects. Would like to hear other opinions.

The BATF never said that it was OK to fire an Arm Brace equipped pistol from the shoulder.

What they did say, in their March 21, 2017 "Open Letter" was that if such a weapon was fired from the shoulder and the firing was" incidental, sporadic, or situational" then the use of the shoulder brace was not a stock, and did not make an SBR.

The letter continued to state that such use on a regular basis would continue to be illegal.

But remember, that letter doesn't mean much in California. California SBR's are governed by California statute.

[Quiet]

The BATF never said that it was OK to fire an Arm Brace equipped pistol from the shoulder.

What they did say, in their March 21, 2017 "Open Letter" was that if such a weapon was fired from the shoulder and the firing was" incidental, sporadic, or situational" then the use of the shoulder brace was not a stock, and did not make an SBR.

The letter continued to state that such use on a regular basis would continue to be illegal.

But remember, that letter doesn't mean much in California. California SBR's are governed by California statute.

The BATFE letter also stated that...

... if the intent for installing an arm brace is to use it as a shoulder stock, then the firearm would be considered a SBR.

... if the arm brace is modified or installed in a manner that make it easier to use as a shoulder stock, then it's an SBR.

[thorium]

The gear head works Tailhook products do not use a receiver extension that a standard stock will fit on.

The new SB tactical product OP links to was just announced at show show does indeed use a standard buffer tube/receiver extension and I would agree should be avoided in CA.

The tail hook mod 2 (polymer collapsible model) uses a proprietary extension for the very reason that you can’t put a normal stock on it but it can still have the proprietary cut outs to be 5 position adjustable.

The original aluminum non adjustable tail hook uses a pistol extension (ie round with no cut outs for adjustable stocks) and just “clamps” onto the end of it.

[thorium]

The real danger point is California law regarding SBR's and the definition of a rifle.

California law doesn't specifically speak to arm braces. But if the brace gives you the ability to fire from the shoulder, then you're open to the argument that your brace is really a stock and your weapon therefore is a SBR.

“Open to the argument” while true is highly speculative. I could say that about any controversial gun product in CA without any further evidence CA authorities view it as illegal.

Can anybody cite any prosecution, case law, penal code, DOJ statements, or anything else substantive that CA legal authorities have gone after pistol braces?

I’m aware of none. So if there is none, and the brace in question is ATF approved and you use it as intended... then I’d say that’s as close to CA legal as you’ll get. Subject to change by our master’s whims, of course.

[RickD427]

“Open to the argument” while true is highly speculative. I could say that about any controversial gun product in CA without any further evidence CA authorities view it as illegal.

Can anybody cite any prosecution, case law, penal code, DOJ statements, or anything else substantive that CA legal authorities have gone after pistol braces?

I’m aware of none. So if there is none, and the brace in question is ATF approved and you use it as intended... then I’d say that’s as close to CA legal as you’ll get. Subject to change by our master’s whims, of course.

Your being aware of none, and there being none, are two very different things.

There is no legal reporting service that reports cases filed by charge. We need to wait until there is a published appellate decision to be able to do such a search and those services are fee based and I no longer subscribe since I'm retired.

However, California has made it quite clear that we're going to follow state firearms law. People v Nguyen being a good example.

[jcwatchdog]