Folding BRACE on PISTOL

[Quiet]

The recent Federal Court actions only applies to the recent changes in Federal regulations and does not apply to currently existing State laws/regulations.

CA SBR/SBS laws are stricter than the Federal NFA laws/regulations.

Per FPC/CGRF and CRPA/NRA, even with all the recent Court actions, arm stabilizing braces are only CA legal on BATFE approved Title 2 AOW.
This is due to CA DOJ BOF still considering them to be a type of shoulder stock and only BATFE approved Title 2 firearms being exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws.


Under CA laws...

A handgun can be determined to be a SBR/SBS if it meets the CA definition of a SBR/SBS. [PC 16640(b)]

Attaching anything to a handgun so that it can be shouldered makes the firearm into a "rifle". [PC 17090]
^Its considered redesigning/remaking the firearm to be fired from the shoulder.

A "rifle" with a less than 16" barrel length or a less than 26" overall length is a SBR. [PC 17170(a),(b)]

BATFE approved Title 2 AOW are exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws. [PC 17710(a)]

Therefore...

It is only 100% CA legal to attach an arm stabilizing brace to a BATFE approved Title 2 AOW.

Attaching an arm stabilizing brace to a handgun can run afoul CA SBR/SBS laws and it is not recommend to do by CA firearm lawyers, unless you are willing to be the test case for challenging CA SBR/SBS laws.

[BucDan]

Wow. So I guess Cali folks with braces are walking on a very thin line.

[IVC]

Wow. So I guess Cali folks with braces are walking on a very thin line.

Cali folks with braces shouldn't be walking around at all. Nor should they have the braces installed on their pistols. Playing with braces is almost dumber than playing with Tannerite (which was sold in some CA stores years back).

But then, I personally love that we have people who will do less-than-reasonable things and force the issue(s) in courts. Without willing participants, there would be no case law...

[BucDan]

Cali folks with braces shouldn't be walking around at all. Nor should they have the braces installed on their pistols. Playing with braces is almost dumber than playing with Tannerite (which was sold in some CA stores years back).

But then, I personally love that we have people who will do less-than-reasonable things and force the issue(s) in courts. Without willing participants, there would be no case law...

Well, AR pistol with a buffer tube isn't so bad. But the bufferless ones are....

[walmart_ar15]

PC17090 still boils down to intend. It?s no diff than Fed?s reg.

?rifle? means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder?.

[Quiet]

PC17090 still boils down to intend. It's no diff than Fed's reg.

FWIW, from discussions with CA DOJ BOF agents and Riverside County ADA...
They are under the impression/belief/understanding that because of all the internet content (forum discussions, videos, pics, etc) from non-disabled persons showing pistols with arm stabilizing braces being used as a shoulder fired firearms, intent is established as soon as a non-disabled person acquires an arm stabilizing brace and installs it on to a firearm.
^Per the ADA, disproving that they have proof of intent is done during the trial phase, after arrest and imprisonment for possessing an illegal SBR.

[Capybara]

I don't know why so many are willing to die on the brace hill? AR pistols are of dubious value for anything beyond a range toy and braces don't radically change that.

Yes, ATF sucks in that they have completely screwed up ever owning one without fear of being arrested but in this state, best to just forget that braces exist for the time being. What the ATF opines often is meaningless here and we have to worry about what might offend our own tyrants.

[IVC]

I don't know why so many are willing to die on the brace hill? AR pistols are of dubious value for anything beyond a range toy and braces don't radically change that.

Actually, we've had this discussion on CalGuns and the brace is almost universally seen as a way to get a non-stamped SBR. Virtually nobody is looking at the brace as something that would attach to the arm - you can easily attach buffer tube to your arm with the basic tie-down without any legal implications. Instead, it's always about "brace is not a stock, but I have it because I, wink, wink, can get my SBR."

I'm not saying it's wrong if it can be done legally, no different than using OLL or SSE to get around the draconian gun laws. Not to mention that SBRs should be legal without any special paperwork gymnastics since they are just rifles, much like SBSs are just shotguns. But until they are, if the "brace workaround" is not available in your locality, just don't mess with it.

[walmart_ar15]

Yup… why go through the trouble of passing regulations or laws if non legal binding opinions can be used to have people self regulate out of fear.

Admittedly it works well. Not worth the potential legal journey for ur avg joe. Just irritation that gov can use the legal system itself as a weapon, while suffers no consequences for doing so.

How is it ok for BOF agents and ADA makes statements like that knowing the impact?

[Capybara]

It def sucks but as long as the CADOJ and ATF have the power to imprison you for violating their arbitrary and capricious rules, not worth the prison time to eff around and find out.

[Magnificus]

I do appreciate all the helpful and thoughtful feedback to my question! I didn't think it would open up such wide variety of opinions!

[sigstroker]

The recent Federal Court actions only applies to the recent changes in Federal regulations and does not apply to currently existing State laws/regulations.

CA SBR/SBS laws are stricter than the Federal NFA laws/regulations.

Per FPC/CGRF and CRPA/NRA, even with all the recent Court actions, arm stabilizing braces are only CA legal on BATFE approved Title 2 AOW.
This is due to CA DOJ BOF still considering them to be a type of shoulder stock and only BATFE approved Title 2 firearms being exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws.


Under CA laws...

A handgun can be determined to be a SBR/SBS if it meets the CA definition of a SBR/SBS. [PC 16640(b)]

Attaching anything to a handgun so that it can be shouldered makes the firearm into a "rifle". [PC 17090]
^Its considered redesigning/remaking the firearm to be fired from the shoulder.

A "rifle" with a less than 16" barrel length or a less than 26" overall length is a SBR. [PC 17170(a),(b)]

BATFE approved Title 2 AOW are exempt from CA SBR/SBS laws. [PC 17710(a)]

Therefore...

It is only 100% CA legal to attach an arm stabilizing brace to a BATFE approved Title 2 AOW.

Attaching an arm stabilizing brace to a handgun can run afoul CA SBR/SBS laws and it is not recommend to do by CA firearm lawyers, unless you are willing to be the test case for challenging CA SBR/SBS laws.

So kali is violating the ADA?

[sigstroker]

I don't know why so many are willing to die on the brace hill? AR pistols are of dubious value for anything beyond a range toy and braces don't radically change that.

Special Forces and special operators disagree with you. Have you heard of the MK18? That's only a 10.3" barrel.

[Capybara]

Special Forces and special operators disagree with you. Have you heard of the MK18? That's only a 10.3" barrel.

The MK18 is an SBR with a real stock you can cram into your shoulder. Braces are usually rubber or thin, flat plastic plates that don't really hold the same function. Better than just free holding it but not as good as a legit rifle stock.

The ballistics on the 5.56/.223 out of 10" barrel definitely don't utilize the round to it's full potential but of course, it's still deadly and lethal, but not as good for longer range engagements as it's coefficient is compromised significantly when compared to a 16-18-20" barrel. But usually an SBR would be used in CQB and not for long range engagement, right?

[enorbit3]

The MK18 is an SBR with a real stock you can cram into your shoulder. Braces are usually rubber or thin, flat plastic plates that don't really hold the same function. Better than just free holding it but not as good as a legit rifle stock.

The ballistics on the 5.56/.223 out of 10" barrel definitely don't utilize the round to it's full potential but of course, it's still deadly and lethal, but not as good for longer range engagements as it's coefficient is compromised significantly when compared to a 16-18-20" barrel. But usually an SBR would be used in CQB and not for long range engagement, right?

When comparing a 10.3" barrel vs a 16-20", of course the longer barrels will offer better ballistics and velocity. But that wasn't your original statement. You said that "AR pistols are of dubious value for anything beyond a range toy". Crane/SOCOM/SF would disagree with that assertion.

Now whether there is a better platform out there for long range engagements was never the issue. OP was only asking about braces on pistols and not whether its suited for CQB, DMR, Range toy, back scratcher, etc.