Stock vs Brace

[HawkMan]

What's the difference between a stock and an arm brace from a legal standpoint?

What's stopping a company from re-branding a stock, calling it an arm brace, and people putting it on their AR pistols?

[swell1957]

Pistols (AR pistol, etc. is a pistol) must be in a locked container while transporting in CA regardless.

[alfred1222]

What's the difference between a stock and an arm brace from a legal standpoint?

Is it just based on the advertised intended use?


The reason I ask is because I remember something about guns needing to be transported in a case, but if the case was not a gun case it had to be locked. People were transporting their rifles in locked guitar cases, but some company started selling gun cases in the shape of a guitar case, so from a legal standpoint they didn't have to lock the case as it was designed to be a gun case.

Well it used to be that you couldnt shoulder an arm brace but you could shoulder a stock. However, according to this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...cal-arm-brace/

you can shoulder AR pistols with arm braces. So the difference is definitely their intended use

[HawkMan]

Well it used to be that you couldnt shoulder an arm brace but you could shoulder a stock. However, according to this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...cal-arm-brace/

you can shoulder AR pistols with arm braces. So the difference is definitely their intended use

So could a company just re-brand a stock and say it's intended as a stabilizing brace? Effectively enabling people to have an SBR.

[Devilmonkey89]

So could a company just re-brand a stock and say it's intended as a stabilizing brace? Effectively enabling people to have an SBR.

I don't think you can "re-name" something that was formerly a stock and it'll magically turn into a brace. Soo... No.

[dwalker]

Call and ask the BATF

[CandG]

If a company DID take a standard stock and re-label it a pistol brace, and somehow got away with it, shortly afterward we would be kissing pistol braces goodbye. Let's not push our luck.

[RickD427]

Well it used to be that you couldnt shoulder an arm brace but you could shoulder a stock. However, according to this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...cal-arm-brace/

you can shoulder AR pistols with arm braces. So the difference is definitely their intended use

Alfred,

The BATF correspondence referenced in the link you provided does not make it lawful to shoulder an AR-15 pistol equipped with an arm brace. In fact, the BATF piece makes it clear that the intentional shouldering of such a weapon remains illegal. All the BATF piece accomplishes is to recognize that the unintended shoulder firing of such a weapon does not, of itself, violate federal law. The author of the article has really stretched the meaning of that communication well out of context, and to the point of being misleading. The top photo in that link clearly shows a felonious use of the arm brace.

The second point for Californians to be concerned with it that the BATF correspondence does not affect California law.

[alfred1222]

Alfred,

The BATF correspondence referenced in the link you provided does not make it lawful to shoulder an AR-15 pistol equipped with an arm brace. In fact, the BATF piece makes it clear that the intentional shouldering of such a weapon remains illegal. All the BATF piece accomplishes is to recognize that the unintended shoulder firing of such a weapon does not, of itself, violate federal law. The author of the article has really stretched the meaning of that communication well out of context, and to the point of being misleading. The top photo in that link clearly shows a felonious use of the arm brace.

The second point for Californians to be concerned with it that the BATF correspondence does not affect California law.

The ATF letter pretty clearly states that if a brace is shouldered without altering it to render it unfunctional as an arm brace, it does not constitute a redesign of the firearm into the realm of the NFA. Also I'm not in California, that BS doesn't apply to me. However, to address your point, the top picture does not show a felony, as defined by the ATF letter. I'll never understand why gun owners are so quick to try and find felonies where none exist.

[RickD427]

The ATF letter pretty clearly states that if a brace is shouldered without altering it to render it unfunctional as an arm brace, it does not constitute a redesign of the firearm into the realm of the NFA. Also I'm not in California, that BS doesn't apply to me. However, to address your point, the top picture does not show a felony, as defined by the ATF letter. I'll never understand why gun owners are so quick to try and find felonies where none exist.

Alfred,

I was going to suggest that you read the ATF letter again, but in the interests of not going around in circles, I'll post the pertinent excerpt from the ATF letter. Here it is:

"Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA."

If you intend to shoulder the weapon, then it becomes a "Short Barreled Rifle" when you shoulder it. The letter doesn't change that fact, and the above excerpt makes that point pretty clear.

What the ATF letter does provide, and is a pull-back from their previous position is that you do not create a "Short Barreled Rifle" by attaching the arm brace, and you do not create a "Short Barreled Rifle" by inadvertently (without intent) shouldering the weapon.

The shooter in the photo (and assuming that he is firing and not just modeling) is in possession of a "Short Barreled Rifle" under the provisions of the letter, and would be committing a federal felony if the necessary NFA work was not done.

[HawkEye415]

Shockwave pistol brace as fixed stock on featureless rifle?

Just was wondering would it be highly illegal to use a Shockwave brace as a fixed stock on a featuless rifle? All in all its a "brace"....

[3rd_gear]

Perfectly legal.

[nguyen.h.harry]

[nguyen.h.harry]

[superhondaz50]

Once a rifle always a rifle. A pistol can become a rifle, in CA it has to stay a rifle, federally it can go back and forth. A title one "other" firearm can become either, granted you very closely watch and make sure you don't violate state and federal law with regards to what you're building. In your situation you can use a shockwave brace on your rifle as long as the barrel remains 16" or more and has an OAL of 30" per CA AW law. Since yours is a rifle, regardless of having a stock, or not (shockwave) it will always be a rifle.