asked and answered. Thanks

[atomicwedgy]

DELETED. Thanks for the chat.

[SkyHawk]

Federally, if the brace now classifies it under the same restrictions as an SBR, what happens?

How about let's wait and see if that ever really happens and is legally enforceable. Sorry I just can't do 'what if' when it comes to Ca gun law issues - we have enough real problems to wade through already.


But you can bet your bottom dollar CA will never allow NFA SBR for mortals if they have an option or opportunity not to. They don't now, they wont going forward. SBA or brace was never a defined feature of CA AW, your RAW letter says nothing about a brace, you will get no cover or grandfather for a brace in CA it doesn't matter if there was one installed when you registered it.

If Biden gets his way and the Supremes back him, you can abandon all hope in CA.

[Bete Noire]

[IVC]

The registration photos are a one-way street, much like anything you say can only be used against you. Anything that the DOJ decides is illegal will be illegal whether it's in the photo or not.

Braces are sort of a gray area at the moment and not only in CA. There were some letters and administrative documents, but nothing is firm and it can change on the whim. This is what the "senile in command" is trying to do as we speak. Personally, I wouldn't touch a brace in CA until we know more. Much more. Just not worth the risk, especially since you always have the buffer tube itself if you want to shoulder a pistol.

[IVC]

I have a RAW pistol by LWRC. It doesn't have a brace and it cannot accept one because of the custom buffer tube that has a sling attachment point at the end.

I own a few braces, but it was just because I could and because it really upsets the CA rulers. Those braces are packed away in one of my parts boxes in the garage. There is no real reason to use them even if I could.

[SkyHawk]

If you registered it with the brace on it, then CA DOJ has pics of it and Ok’d the registration in the configuration that it was in...brace and all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which means exactly squat. Nothing. Zero. At least, it means nothing good. They may have OKd the config, but in doing so they made no promises you'd be able to keep it. They were only interested in legally defined AW features.

Anything attached to the gun that was not a defined CA AW feature, such as your optic, your sling, your brace, your Hello Kitty decal - are not registered/protected features. And you can bet CA is not going to throw you a lifeline if Uncle Joe bans any of those features or requires them to be registered NFA.

[SkyHawk]

I have a RAW pistol by LWRC. It doesn't have a brace and it cannot accept one because of the custom buffer tube that has a sling attachment point at the end.

I own a few braces, but it was just because I could and because it really upsets the CA rulers. Those braces are packed away in one of my parts boxes in the garage. There is no real reason to use them even if I could.

If braces on pistols becomes a NFA feature equal to a shoulder stock, then in theory mere possession of them along with a pistol could constitute constructive possession of a NFA firearm.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download

Held, a firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:
...
(b) Convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm, including – (1) A pistol and attachable shoulder stock; and

[sigstroker]

So that was a thought I had. A few of them are registered with SBA3's and a few are with the original SBA sig brace and one with the SBAPDW.

They were registered as semi automatic RAW pistols, photos and all.

You understand that Federal law and kali law are separate and distinct? IF the feds say braces are illegal they can still arrest and prosecute you. Kali can't do a thing to help you.

[IVC]

If braces on pistols becomes a NFA feature equal to a shoulder stock, then in theory mere possession of them along with a pistol could constitute constructive possession of a NFA firearm.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ru...stols/download

I am comfortable with the current situation because the brace cannot be attached to my pistol and because we haven't yet reached the point of declaring it a stock.

I'm monitoring what the "senile in command" is doing these days and would expect to have some more interesting developments when the 60 days are up for the BATFE to "act." Clearly, if they overreach, there will be a lawsuit in a friendliest district court of the friendliest circuit to get a nationwide injunction. These courts were never in play before because there are no states in them with restrictive gun laws, so it's nothing like going to CA-9. We will know soon enough. (It worked against Trump when he was clearly within his authority, so no reason not to work in reverse.)

[SkyHawk]

I am comfortable with the current situation because the brace cannot be attached to my pistol and because we haven't yet reached the point of declaring it a stock.

I'm monitoring what the "senile in command" is doing these days and would expect to have some more interesting developments when the 60 days are up for the BATFE to "act." Clearly, if they overreach, there will be a lawsuit in a friendliest district court of the friendliest circuit to get a nationwide injunction. These courts were never in play before because there are no states in them with restrictive gun laws, so it's nothing like going to CA-9. We will know soon enough.

I am not rushing to make any changes to my pistols either. This is just the beginning of the story, not the end. Which is why these 'what if' threads are rarely constructive.

[IVC]

I am not rushing to make any changes to my pistols either. This is just the beginning of the story, not the end. Which is why these 'what if' threads are rarely constructive.

Yup, but it's good to bring up points about "constructive possession" and to have this discussion so members who are not deep into it can get good information (or a good starting point to research it themselves).

[SkyHawk]

Yup, but it's good to bring up points about "constructive possession" and to have this discussion so members who are not deep into it can get good information (or a good starting point to research it themselves).

You are right. But they are depressing, maybe that is why I rail on them.