Watch "BREAKING NEWS: ATF Making AR/AK Pistols AOWs & SBRs and MORE!" on YouTube

Make sure this gets spread around.


Saw this the other day, atf is just nuts. They think they can do whatever they want. First atf says ok, no problem. Then they see tax money coming their way. Oh boy we got them now, lets change the rules, who cares. DemocrAts made some room in the prisons lets fill hem back up. Yeah I think their nuts…


Yeah, so those people who own those guns can they take the brace off to be compliant? @MikeBKY, @Craig6 or are they instant felons.


Naw, didn’t see this one coming…


@Zavier_D I have heard of the recent interpretation but do not know yet what is really going on with it.
All I will say is, if you think it is bad now, just wait and see what happens with a Biden or Harrass (intentional misspelling) presidency.


I still fail to see how the ATF can change classifications like this and make things “illegal”.


The ATF needs to be removed


I unfortunately have not had time to get down in the weeds on this one. As I understand it the ATFE banned a particular manufacturer from producing a specific platform NOT the parts on the platform individually. As I understand it the ruling is now under litigation and as such is held back from enforcement, but I could be wrong. Like I said I haven’t had the chance to see the letter or the other pertinent bits.




My understanding is that the turmoil is due to the fact that there are a number of already approved ‘pistols’ that, if reevaluated, would fail to be certified for the same reasons.


I’m glad I read this post. I was actually looking at an AR Pistol for a pretty good price and close to making the purchase but I don’t think it’s a good idea now.


Ok, so I have seen many of these on youtube, read the articles and the letter from The Wiley firm.

We all know the recent Honey Badger debacle has caused huge concern on how the ATF will potentially be coming after certain types of firearms.

Here is my take…your AR/AK pistol is still legal. Why do I say this? Because there is nothing released by the ATF making it illegal. The Wiley firm represents many firearm clients and released a letter issuing it’s interpretation to warn clients about POSSIBLE future limitations on importation of pistols. This interpretation for the ATF is about importation at this time.

What this does mean though is that there is the potential the ATF could rule that ANY firearm not meeting specifications for a pistol could be subject to NFA regulation. With the 60 stay on the Honey Badger and the recent importation regulation change, I believe they are gearing up for a Biden presidency. Under a Trump presidency, they know they can’t just suddenly make them restricted so if he gets re-elected then we may see this go away…hopefully.

For now, your AR/AK pistol is legal, but if you have been thinking of making yours an SBR, you may want to just pull the trigger and do it now. Or, just wait and see what happens.

Best thing to do is write to AG Barr, Trump and your local congress people about your concerns and start fighting back against this type of tyranny. If you have time to post on a forum about it, you have the time to talk to the people that can make a difference.


Just watched it. Thanks for the info.

1 Like

Just to coin an old phrase its not what it was, what it is, it’s what it shall be.

1 Like

If, and I repeat - ‘IF’ ATF rules that having a brace on an AR-Pistol puts it into the category of an SBR, just remove both the brace and the brace buffer tube, then install a smooth, round AR -Pistol buffer tube and you’r good to go.


BATFE has an open forum up right now asking for “the publics” opinions. If you choose to go and give yours, remember one thing, they’re going to ignore anything with profanity or accusations about shooting dogs and wives.

I left my opinions.


Here are a couple of links to help find the draft document and make your comments:

Federal Register :: Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” - Your Comment

There may be others, but this is what I have found so far.

Edit: I find this tidbit interesting:

“Finally, this notice previews ATF’s and the Department of Justice’s plan to subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA, including an expedited application process and the retroactive exemption of such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes.”

So they are offering to provide SBR tax stamps free of charge to anyone that currently owns a brace. This gives me mixed emotions because it would appear they are trying this route to move closer to a national registration database. But, on the other hand, a lot more manhours for them, but they have demonstrated they are willing to extract data from shipping and credit card companies to accomplish the same, i.e., you’re danged if you do, and danged if you don’t. People like @Enzo_T already have registered SBR(s) and do not appear to be concerned about, nor have had any issues being part of the NFA registration database. Was allowing the “shouldering” of AR/AK/PCC pistol braces a ploy to increase registrations in the future, in other words, NOW? They were either oblivious to the idea that “shouldering” would make brace sales take off, or was it a sinister plot as I suggested above?

I don’t have the answers, but just poking at it.


I read the entire document this morning. It appears to me the intent of the document is not bad. However, the content of the document is poorly executed. I am formulating my comments:

If ATF’s objective with this document is to provide “objective” criteria for evaluation of a pistol with a stabilizing brace, this document fails because there is very little if any “objective” content. An objective criterion always contains the word “shall”. There is not one use of the word “shall” in the entire document. The word “may” or “plan” appears everywhere I would expect to see “shall”. “May” and “Plan” are not objective criteria. The criteria for “Type and Caliber”, Weight and Length”, “Length of Pull”, “Attachment Method”, and “Stabilizing Brace Design Features” are still subjective, not objective.

I would also like to see objective criteria added to the document regarding the “planned” grandfather implementation of existing stabilizer-equipped firearms. A large number of existing stabilizer-equipped firearms were legally purchased and assembled by the owner. Will the owner such a stabilizer-equipped firearm be part of the expedited tax stamp and exempt from collection of taxes?


currently they are asking opinions on pistol braces and have a lot of general statesments which everyone needs to read if you have a pistol with an unacceptable classified brace. This is an open letter posted on the Government website. They have restrictions and it is open only until January 4th, 2021

1 Like

There’s actually a precedent of the ATF trying to prosecute someone offer similar arguments of “intent”. Long story short, they lost.


Good article and @Oliver_L the good guys finally win one.:+1::+1:

1 Like