Is it legal to shoulder shot MPX with 4.5 barrel?

[RickD427]

I know California law supersedes Federal, but in this case what law exists in California is murky as hell and does not directly apply. California has to make the argument that braces are in fact meant to be shouldered and are actually stocks. While the Federal opinion letter says clear as day that is not the case, and shouldering them does not make them a stock. If that ATF opinion letter did not exist, I would agree with those who say it is illegal. But the ATF letter is a game changer. California would need to clear this up with either legislation that focuses specifically on these braces or there needs to be a court ruling specifically on the issue or braces before anyone could definitively say it is illegal. I don't want to be that test case but given the existence of the ATF letter I seriously doubt a DA would even think about pursuing this. It's a loser case. DAs don't like to take on loser cases. The precedent of the courts using those ATF letters to determine what is and is not legal when the current legislation is murky or confusing is well established.

Now if there is some legislation that clarified this point after the ATF did, fine then I am wrong. But I am not aware of it.

First off, California law does not necessarily supersede federal law, nor does federal law necessarily supersede California law. But that's an irrelevant point if there is no conflict between the two laws. There is not a conflict raised just because the laws address a subject differently. So long as both laws can be followed, there is no conflict. A conflict occurs when one law must be violated in order to follow the other. Where there is a conflict, the interplay of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment will decide which law wins. There is no conflict between the feds and California over arm braces.

The BATF letter addressing arm braces is meaningless in California. That letter only addresses the issue of federal statutory compliance. It don't say nothing about California statutes. California has no need to address the BATF letter. It's "apples" and "oranges."

You're correct in that prosecutors don't like to take on potentially losing cases, but they also very much seek out cases that will bring them positive publicity and the balance of public opinion is not supportive of arm braces. We've got 58 different District Attorneys in the state and the DOJ also has prosecution authority. I can foresee at least one of them finding a case they believe worthy of prosecution.

[bwiese]

First off, California law does not necessarily supersede federal law, nor does federal law necessarily supersede California law. But that's an irrelevant point if there is no conflict between the two laws. There is not a conflict raised just because the laws address a subject differently. So long as both laws can be followed, there is no conflict. A conflict occurs when one law must be violated in order to follow the other. Where there is a conflict, the interplay of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment will decide which law wins. There is no conflict between the feds and California over arm braces.

The BATF letter addressing arm braces is meaningless in California. That letter only addresses the issue of federal statutory compliance. It don't say nothing about California statutes. California has no need to address the BATF letter. It's "apples" and "oranges."

You're correct in that prosecutors don't like to take on potentially losing cases, but they also very much seek out cases that will bring them positive publicity and the balance of public opinion is not supportive of arm braces. We've got 58 different District Attorneys in the state and the DOJ also has prosecution authority. I can foresee at least one of them finding a case they believe worthy of prosecution.

RickD427,

Absolutely agreed.

One or more courts can easily have a judge make a finding of law that a
'brace' is a 'stock' by design/function, structure & form factor. The fact there
are doofuses on YouTube calling them their "California SBR" only adds to it.
The DA will grab some 'crime lab' guys and/or a few cops who will state
"... in my experience people use these in place a of a stock just due to
naming issues, thinking they are compliant."

'Stock' is not defined anywhere - not in statute, and not in regulatory code -
so it's up in the air and unbound by such.

In fact the discussions in the various ATF exemptive letters likely would help
the DA make his case that "brace == stock", and then the jump from
"pistol with stock" to "SBR".