Pistol brace is legal ?

[bronco1500]

I’ve been out of the game for a bit . How are braces looked at nowadays ?

[bronco1500]

Sorry, the site is glitchy

[walmart_ar15]

The question is not if something is legal, it is more if something is not legal. Typically, regulations are not written to state if something is legal, it is mostly written to state if something is illegal. There are no CA specific regulation stating the pistol brace is illegal and believe the Fed law ATF interpretation no longer consider pistol brace to be illegal. However, law is based on interpretation by the DA and lawyers. A DA can charge you anything they dream up, it will then be up to you to defended in court. Of course, DA don't like to lose and make themselves look like morons, but they do like to make a name for themselves prosecuting cases. Thus, if a DA found an angle to convince the court your pistol brace is actually a stock, then hope you have sufficient funds to defend yourself in court.

By asking this question in the rifle section of a forum really does put your intent suspect. Remember a stock on a pistol is still consider SBR unless you have a stamp for Fed, and still not allowed in CA.

[tacticalcity]

The answer is we don't know and won't know unless and until there is a test case that clarifies the issue once and for all. Which obviously no one what's to be the candidate for. Since it means risking their freedom and spending millions of dollars. I am not aware of anyone being charged with having an SBR because they had a brace on it here in California. But that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen in the future. There is no California law expressly forbidding pistol braces, however there are those who believe the existing law can be interpreted to classify most if not all braces as a stock despite the Supreme Court ruling. There are dozens of posts about this subject here on Calguns. You can use the search feature to find them and read the PC for yourself and their reasoning behind why many people believe it means braces are not legal. Personally, I believe that because they are not expressly forbidden, they are legal. But I don't want to get arrested and have to prove it in court either.

[RickD427]

Keep in mind that the ATF opinions and practices with regard to pistol braces are irrelevant to California law.

There is no California statute or regulation that specifically forbids pistol braces.

The problem is that California defines a "Rifle" as being "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder." That choice of language covers changes to a weapon after it was originally manufactured. The issue is whether a pistol brace equipped pistol is "intended" to be fired from the shoulder. If the answer is "yes", then the weapon is a rifle. If the barrel is less than 16", then it's an illegal SBR. If the answer is "no", then the weapon is a pistol and not illegal, unless there is some other attribute of the pistol that makes it illegal.

There's a ton of videos, readily available on the web, that show folks firing pistol brace equipped weapons from the shoulder. They don't help the argument here. If a filing DDA, or juror, sees such a video, they can reasonably conclude the intent issue.

But as Mr. "Tacticalcity" has pointed out, we lack a test case to define the boundaries of the intent issue.

[tacticalcity]

Keep in mind that the ATF opinions and practices with regard to pistol braces are irrelevant to California law.

There is no California statute or regulation that specifically forbids pistol braces.

The problem is that California defines a "Rifle" as being "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder." That choice of language covers changes to a weapon after it was originally manufactured. The issue is whether a pistol brace equipped pistol is "intended" to be fired from the shoulder. If the answer is "yes", then the weapon is a rifle. If the barrel is less than 16", then it's an illegal SBR. If the answer is "no", then the weapon is a pistol and not illegal, unless there is some other attribute of the pistol that makes it illegal.

There's a ton of videos, readily available on the web, that show folks firing pistol brace equipped weapons from the shoulder. They don't help the argument here. If a filing DDA, or juror, sees such a video, they can reasonably conclude the intent issue.

But as Mr. "Tacticalcity" has pointed out, we lack a test case to define the boundaries of the intent issue.

Let's hope we never get a test case. That would suck for the individual or individuals in question.

[bwiese]

Let's hope we never get a test case. That would suck for the individual or individuals in question.

We'll get one. There may have been one even we don't know about - it's not 2007-8 anymore where
we heard about any AW-ish related arrest.

About 8? yrs ago there was a robbery crew in Modesto area that was busted with a braced pistol.
CA SBR charges, IIRC, were proffered but then they plead out in a package deal.

There may have been other arrests outside the gun community where SBR charges were similarly filed
and we didn't hear of it.

Searching crime databases for charges is often hard without a lottta Lexis/Nexis etc time esp if they
are secondary charges (robbery, assault, drugs + all the gun issues).

A CA SBR charge for a braced gun would be difficult to defend because lack of restriction on defined
items - hell, 'stock' ain't even defined.

Also, even if we knew about one arrest/conviction - trial court holdings are not precedential. This
is why when defending BB ARs back in 2007-09 timeframe we wanted to get a lotta prosecutorial
losses or dropped cases and factual findings of innocence (FFIs) in multiple jurisdictions around CA.
But we had law and clear regulation to stand on - we don't here, nor should we waste time/assets
on this right now.

Any Calgunner who gets popped on otherwise-legal 'braced' pistols is just silly and cheap, when he
can get an NFA AOW here in CA to exempt him from state SBR charges.

Bill

[BrokerB]

I could not google this NFA AOW option in the googler for Kalifornia. Is there a link handy?

[RickD427]

I could not google this NFA AOW option in the googler for Kalifornia. Is there a link handy?

Please refer to Penal Code sections 16590 and 17710.

[CAGLS]

If the lower was dros’d as a pistol via single shot exemption then the lower will always be a pistol which after taking possession can be put back to semi auto by changing the upper receiver.