Folding BRACE on PISTOL

[Magnificus]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but I cannot find anything specifically regarding if it is legal to place a folding brace on a pistol.

I recently purchased a Juggernaut Tactical AR-9 Pistol with an 8.5" barrel. Per the CA roster, this is a PISTOL and not a rifle. I would love to install a folding BRACE, not a stock. Thank you in advance for any assistance!

[SAlNlDllvllAlNl]

Just make sure the length of pull is no greater than 13.5". (trigger face to the end of brace)

[Palmaris]

Just make sure the length of pull is no greater than 13.5". (trigger face to the end of brace)

[sigstroker]

Just make sure the length of pull is no greater than 13.5". (trigger face to the end of brace)

You mean 12.5.

[BucDan]

What's the best folding brace anyway?

[static2126]

Depends platform

If ar law or dead foot

If mp5 or mpx/mcx/ak way more options

[CAL.BAR]

OP NO NO NO. The pistol brace issue is a FEDERAL one. NOT state. CA has NEVER EVER EVER allowed pistol braces or opined on them like the ATF. CA WILL consider your "brace" to be a stock and thus your pistol a SBR and give you NO quarter. Braces are only possible in states where they don't have specific laws against SBR's etc. CA DOES.

[Capybara]

What about putting the Law folder with a pistol buffer tube only, no brace. Legal? And what is the LOP requirement for pistols, is that in PC somewhere state or federal? Or is that just the wishy washy ATF BS that isn't a law, isn't in PC anywhere? A "regulation" that they change their mind on every few months?

Sigstroker, is it really 12.5" Do you have a reference for that?

[IVC]

Legality has TWO parts: Federal and CA laws.

While there has been some back-and-forth at the federal level, CA has no precedent we can work off of, and it's almost certain that the state of CA considers braces a stock. Do we know for certain at the moment the situation in CA? Not really. But an educated guess is that it's a no-go by default, unless you're ready to be a test case if/when you get in trouble for it (might be never, that's the "beauty" of the uncertainty of the test cases).

But if braces were NOT stocks (both federally and under the CA law), then there would be no (current) restriction on them, as they wouldn't appear in the definition of firearms and would be just another accessory.

[sigstroker]

What about putting the Law folder with a pistol buffer tube only, no brace. Legal? And what is the LOP requirement for pistols, is that in PC somewhere state or federal? Or is that just the wishy washy ATF BS that isn't a law, isn't in PC anywhere? A "regulation" that they change their mind on every few months?

Sigstroker, is it really 12.5" Do you have a reference for that?

Just search for it, easy to find. It's in AFT regs, and yes they prosecute on it. In fact there is a semi-famous case where the gun owner measured on a straight line along the top of the receiver 12.5 inches to the end of the brace. That's how gun manufacturers measure LOP. But AFT measures from the face of the trigger to the mid-point on the rear of the brace. The diagonal is going to be longer (hypotenuse of the triangle). I don't remember who won the trial, but the fact AFT considers it a violation is important.

[sigstroker]

Legality has TWO parts: Federal and CA laws.

While there has been some back-and-forth at the federal level, CA has no precedent we can work off of, and it's almost certain that the state of CA considers braces a stock. Do we know for certain at the moment the situation in CA? Not really. But an educated guess is that it's a no-go by default, unless you're ready to be a test case if/when you get in trouble for it (might be never, that's the "beauty" of the uncertainty of the test cases).

But if braces were NOT stocks (both federally and under the CA law), then there would be no (current) restriction on them, as they wouldn't appear in the definition of firearms and would be just another accessory.

Right now is not the best time to test it. AFT has issued a regulation that says they're stocks. Just because there's an injunction against enforcement, it doesn't change the reg saying they're stocks. Now if we win the case, that means AFT is wrong and they aren't stocks. If kali has not got specifics in statute, you have a good chance if they try to prosecute. Some kali dillhole may claim they're stocks, but if a federal court has said they are not, kali's claim looks pretty weak.

[Capybara]

Just search for it, easy to find. It's in AFT regs, and yes they prosecute on it. In fact there is a semi-famous case where the gun owner measured on a straight line along the top of the receiver 12.5 inches to the end of the brace. That's how gun manufacturers measure LOP. But AFT measures from the face of the trigger to the mid-point on the rear of the brace. The diagonal is going to be longer (hypotenuse of the triangle). I don't remember who won the trial, but the fact AFT considers it a violation is important.

Thanks, I'll do some scrounging around.

[BucDan]

OP NO NO NO. The pistol brace issue is a FEDERAL one. NOT state. CA has NEVER EVER EVER allowed pistol braces or opined on them like the ATF. CA WILL consider your "brace" to be a stock and thus your pistol a SBR and give you NO quarter. Braces are only possible in states where they don't have specific laws against SBR's etc. CA DOES.

So everyone person on a r/caguns subreddit posting pics are possibly incriminating themselves?

[walmart_ar15]

Right now is not the best time to test it. AFT has issued a regulation that says they're stocks. Just because there's an injunction against enforcement, it doesn't change the reg saying they're stocks. Now if we win the case, that means AFT is wrong and they aren't stocks. If kali has not got specifics in statute, you have a good chance if they try to prosecute. Some kali dillhole may claim they're stocks, but if a federal court has said they are not, kali's claim looks pretty weak.

^ this. Without specific State regulation, the courts will default to Fed. Of course a DA can charge u with anything, even breathing, but it would be up to the DA to prove u ?intent? to build a SBR. It would be a tall order with all the ATF information on how a brace is defined, so good chance no DA would prosecute knowing a case with high probability of losing, unless there r political motive.

Even tho the Fed ATF reg is stayed for now, follow ATF?s definitions so as to provide ample reason that u have a brace, not a stock. Oh, yeah, brace is still legal, u just have to follow specific configurations.

[CAL.BAR]

^ this. Without specific State regulation, the courts will default to Fed. Of course a DA can charge u with anything, even breathing, but it would be up to the DA to prove u ?intent? to build a SBR. It would be a tall order with all the ATF information on how a brace is defined, so good chance no DA would prosecute knowing a case with high probability of losing, unless there r political motive.

Even tho the Fed ATF reg is stayed for now, follow ATF?s definitions so as to provide ample reason that u have a brace, not a stock. Oh, yeah, brace is still legal, u just have to follow specific configurations.

Not quite. CA DOES have an anti-sbr law and does NOT need to differ to the Fed. CA WILL treat it as a stock and thus an SBR. IT IS NOT WORTH IT.