I have this on very good authority:
The issue with the folding brace thing is this. Handguns, by ATF definition, are guns intended to be fired by one hand.
Rifles are guns intended to be fired from the shoulder.
A brace may help you fire it one-handed, which is why is not classified as a stock. However, a brace is NOT NECESSARY for one-handed firing.
Since the brace is not necessary, it cannot be included in the overall length measurement of the gun. So if it folds, it has to be measured in the folded length.
A vertical fore grip is for two-handed firing. Putting a vertical fore grip on a gun shorter than 26 inches turns a handgun from a one-handed gun into a two-handed gun which makes it into an AOW.
Longer than 26 inches but with a rifled barrel less than 16 inches and it is not a pistol, it is a firearm. There is no issue with shooting a firearm with two hands.
The problem is that people had made firearms (OAL > 26 inches, but barrel < 16 inches) with vertical grips.
Most people started with registered pistol receivers because you can turn a pistol into a firearm without paperwork. Putting a short barrel on a registered rifle receiver makes it an SBR, even if you don’t have a stock on it.
By “registered” I mean how the manufacturer serialized it with the ATF when it went on their bound book.
That is all perfectly legal.
But then these people decided to put a folding buffer tube on their pistol turned firearm with a vertical grip.
The ATF decision using the logic above meant that these pistols turned firearms now measured less than 26 inches overall with the buffer folded and with the vertical grip made them into AOWs.
People are making more of a deal out of this than they should be.
The ATF’s logic isn’t off the wall, just keep in mind that the definition of a handgun is a gun that is intended to be shot with one hand, even if it is not practical to do so.
Muzzle brakes that are not permanently attached have never been included in OAL because they are removable and OAL includes everything that is necessary for the function of the gun. If the muzzle brake or flash hider can come off, it’s not necessary for function.
The upside of this is in OAL for collapsible stocks is the stock fully extended because that is necessary for the proper shouldering of a long gun.
In the end, just keep in mind this simple rule of thumb: If you built it out of a pistol receiver and you are not absolutely sure what you are doing, don’t put a vertical fore grip on it.
UPDATE:
I want to clarify something about “necessary to function.”
Yes, an AR-pattern firearm needs the buffer tube to cycle. But function and cycle are different things for the ATF.
Function means “can it fire one round.”
That’s it.
You can cut the locking lugs off the bolt head and it is still a functioning firearm. It will only fire once and be dangerous to the user, but the ATF doesn’t care about that.
An AR pistol, loaded with one round in the chamber and the buffer tube folded will discharge a round. It won’t cycle, and it will suck for the shooter, but that is a functioning gun.
You may not agree with this. You make not like it. You may think it is a stupid rule. But it’s the rule.
I’m just trying to explain to you the ATF reasoning.
Thanks. I’ve seen two or three videos about the ruling but had not read anything on it till your article. Being a visual learner, this explained it clearly.
The other part for me was that I don’t have any of those neat aow/pistols in rifle caliber. So none of it applied to me.
Regardless, it is still a nasty thing when a rule change can suddenly make people felons just for owning something that was legal to own yesterday.
Thank you for the summary. You made it more clear than my local legal eagle or any of the explanations thus far.
I’m skeptical of the explanation as ive read similar but different enough.
The buffer tube is included in measurements for a pistol on ar pattern but s brace is not because it is not integral to function.
Likewise logically it would be consistent for a collapsible stock to be measured fully collapsed because extending it is not necessary for the function of the firearm.
In addition it wasn’t really ar pattern pistols/firearms per say that were the issue because the tube makes them almost always the correct lenght, but aks, vectors, etc that don’t have a buffer tube required for firing. These had folding braces installed and were incorrectly measures with the brace extended/unfolded. It is incorrect because the brace/tube does not need to be extended/unfolded for function.
This is also nothing new, you might say it goes as far back in recent memory of the atf saying firing a pistol from the shoulder using abrsve redesigns it as a rifle. At any rate last year some time, as I commented on the other post, individuals who might fall into this category of an oopsie were sent letters from the ATF “requesting” an examination of the pistol/firearm for compliance. Supposedly if they were found not in compliay they were allowed to register NFA or fix because it was due to an administrative clarification, so they were being mostly nice about it.
With some exceptions you CANNOT fire an AR style firearm with a folding brace folded as that is where the buffer tube and buffer and and spring are and the BCG would just fly out the upper receiver if fired. Now an AK style does not have that so can be fired with the brace folded.
The firearm with the folding brace, I think, should be measured in the unfolded position without the brace from the end of the buffer tube to the muzzle.
You beat me to the point with your latest update on ‘function’.
And there’s more than one ‘upside’. JKb
With this, ATF has done some more painting themselves into a regulatory corner.
They have – again – stated, and this time unambiguously, that Arm Braces are not Stocks.
There’s been quite a number of people going on about ATF doing some regulatory mid-night mumbo jumbo and declaring all these arm braced pistols SBRs in a fell swoop.
That’s almost impossible by using their regulatory powers now. I think it would take statute law to do so and bureaucraps don’t write laws, Congress does.
If they try to flip-flop again after this, it won’t be pretty and they know it. They were out on a very thin legal limb with that ‘shouldering a brace makes a SBR’ and their lawyers let them know it. That’s why it was walked back.