Breaking News Update: ATF Reversal Letter To SB Tactical

So here is the letter written by Marvin G. Richardson, Assistant Director of the Enforcement Programs and Services, to Mark Barnes, Esq and SB Tactical.



Mark Barnes Esq represented SB Tactical to help the ATF clarify their Open Letter from 2015. Everyone remembers that moment. It happened right before Shot Show 2015. The ATF published a letter detailing that shouldering a “Stabilizing Brace” constitutes a redesign since it was never designed to be shot from the shoulder.

This new letter starts off with a brief exposition acknowledging Mr. Barnes’ letter dated Jan 5, 2017. Then goes on to provide background on what the ATF determines as “firearm” and points out that the ATF approved the “arm-stabilizing brace” in 2012. This was the original SB Tactical brace which went on to become the “Sig Brace”

However constant poking of the bear, by the public, asking for clarification whether or not the Stabilizing Brace could be used as a shoulder stock is what led to the Open Letter in 2015.

Barnes’ letter asserts that misusing a brace is equivalent to using a wrench as a hammer or screw driver as a prybar and does not constitute “redesign”.

Now comes the important part which is the fifth paragraph.

The crucial part of the above paragraph is this line here.

What does that mean? While they do not specify the magic “length”, you should be wary of braces that are permanently attached to the end of a buffer tube that exceeds this specified “length”. The only braces that I can think of that fit this criteria are the GHW Tailhook and the Shockwave blade with the KAK pistol buffer tube. Take the Shockwave for example, when used with the KAK buffer tube there are 12 positions for the Shockwave blade to be affixed. That does position the Blade at a much longer length than any of the SB Tactical braces. That might be what the ATF is referring to. Same goes with the Tailhook being used on adjustable modified stock. Affixing the brace at the end of the buffer tube is not illegal. But if you do so and it results in making a super long brace then the ATF has a problem with that.

Marvin G. Richardson, Assistant Director of the Enforcement Programs and Services admits that the Open Letter was confusing and now have clarified their position.

Now this letter is directed to and for SB Tactical. I do not know if this applies to other braces like the Shockwave Blade or the GHW Tailhook. I would surmise it does not. Given the fact that repeated “poking of the bear” caused the Open Letter to happen I say leave well enough alone. You got a pistol with an SB Tactical or Sig Brace? Shoulder it to your hearts content. Just leave them alone and don’t mess with them.

Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at


  • Jambo

    Okay, but what if I have one of the other braces that came as a kit with the ability to be fixed in place? Are these considered stocks now or not?

    • Nicholas C

      Not sure. I would get rid of them and get an SB Tactical brace. Just to be sure.

      • pvw20

        ……and this bridge I have for sale here.

      • RSG

        Are you serious? I didn’t see a snark tag.

    • valorius

      Hey i got an idea, write the ATF a letter and get them to say NO you cant have that.

    • int19h

      The way I read it, having it fixed in place is not the problem. It’s having it fixed in such a way that you can’t be using it as a brace that is (i.e. too far for your arm to go through it and still reach the pistol grip).

      This would actually imply that it’s the KAK “stabilizing blade” that has the most leeway as far as how long you can make your non-stock.

      • Military Arms Channel

        The only fly in the ointment of your theory is the letter KAK is in possession of which reads:

        “Based on our evaluation, FTISB finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a pistol is a “firearm” subject to the GCA provisions; however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA provided the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock.”

        KAK needs a new letter that doesn’t emphasize that shouldering their Blade is not allowed. That’s how their current letter reads.

    • YS

      According to this opinion, the exception applies to _permanently_ affixed braces, not just affixed. Since the opinion doesn’t specify what this means, I assume they mean something similar to muzzle devices where they are considered permanently affixed if they are pinned/welded or silver soldered.

      Since the blade can be adjusted/removed with a simple hex key, I don’t think they are _permanently_ affixed.

      • Nicholas C

        That’s not it. It is when you do so and it creates a super long length. Think of it like ban state evil feature. You can only have one not both. Putting a brace at the end of a buffer tube. But not make it super long.

        • Rick O’Shay

          But what if, I’ve I mentioned elsewhere, I have freakishly long forearms? I mean, I’m 6’5″… if I want my pistol properly stabilized, I need that paddle extended quite a ways. Otherwise what’s the point?

        • YS

          I would agree if they just said affixed, but they specifically said permanently affixed.

        • RSG

          I’m not sure that’s correct. The Sig brace is a friction fit. I have the original Sig brace on a factory AAC 300BLK pistol. The fit was so extraordinarily tight, the brace had to be pounded into place with the aid of baby powder. So, are you saying depending on where I slide the brace to will determine if it’s an sbr or not? My brace is about halfway to being completely “seated”. It’s not permanent, but it’s not going anywhere. Not even recoil repositions it. I know that the brace fits loosely on lots of buffer tubes. Because mine is so tight, it’s actually “adjustable”. IMO, the ATF’s entire argument is specious.

  • DrewN

    Poking the bear or not, if I was the guy from ATF and it was my job to decide these things I’d probably say something like “We all know the NFA is poorly written and impossible to enforce, but FFS, you’re not fooling anybody and you’re just making more work for me.” Can’t fault guy for trying to do his shitty,thankless, crappy cubicle, rules-changing-every-time-the-wind-blows-thanks-asshole-legislators job. And besides, ATF has always played cool with me. Not like city planning I’ll tell you that.

  • noob

    Pistol braces are to SBRs what the pull out method is to contraception.

    • int19h

      So… better than nothing?

    • RSG

      Actually, sbr’s are so heavily regulated with infringements, they fail to be a practical self defense tool. Can’t carry an sbr, loaded in the cab of a vehicle (can with a braced pistol). Can’t carry an sbr concealed, on your person (ie in a back pack- ok with a pistol) can’t carry an sbr across state lines without asking Daddy for permission. My AR pistol can be carried in the 22 states my permit is honored. And finally, because an sbr is federally regulated so heavily, can add additional problems if it’s ever used in a self defense shooting (more so than an ordinary firearm). SBR’s are junk, imo.

      • But. I still want one. Preferably not an AR, but a cooler one

    • Jeff Smith

      More fun? Something you do because creepy Uncle Sam said you could? Something you pray won’t come back to bite you in the ass? I’m not sure I follow…

    • John

      Some people are impressed if you practice a lot?

    • JF

      The “paddle shift” transmission of the gun world.

      • Rogertc1

        had to look that one up..

    • Rogertc1

      Some states do not allow any SBRs. Thus why I have the braces. Bet this pisses off people who spent time and $ registering theirs.

    • valorius

      There are some pistol braces on the market nowadays that are just as good as a stock.

    • sonny

      True, but once the bullet has exited the muzzle……………………..???

  • Qoquaq En Transic

    All this BS just goes to show that the SBR classification is total nonsense and should be done away with.

    • That would require a federal agency which has the authority to make policy carrying the weight of law but without legislative input to both develop a concept of “common sense” and willingly dial back its own power level.

      I suggest continuing to breathe normally.

      • Qoquaq En Transic

        I will. Because I seriously doubt they’ll do away with the SBR restrictions.

        • int19h

          ATF simply doesn’t has the authority to do so. They have a lot of leeway when it comes to interpretation, but the things that are spelled out in NFA are hard to work around.

          At most they could stop enforcing it. It would still remain illegal though.

          • Scott Esse

            the BATF was GRANTED such authority under very incarnation of the GCA by congress, ignoring the second amendment

          • int19h

            Can you point out where ATF was granted the authority to change things that are directly covered by the wording in NFA?

    • Michel_T

      It certainly looks like bureaucrats trying to justify their bureaucracy…
      What difference does it make if someone wants to is handgun?
      – Will it have an impact on criminality?
      – Will it have a positive impact on the life of someone, somewhere?

  • Fox Hunter

    There are many alternatives now to shoulder stocks like cheekrests, the gill arm brace for the glock, etc. with guns like the scorpion evo 3, you can just remove the butt of the factory folding stock and use it as a cheekrest and you are good to go , for guns that have buffer tubes, just use a foam covered pistol buffer tube and you are g2g. For handguns like the glocks, you can use things like the gill arm brace or similar products, which increase stability especially during rapid fire. for guns like the AK , that can take folding shoulder stocks, just attach folding cheekrests made from ar15 pistol buffer tubes or even the scorpion factory stock with butt removed. The roni carbine conversions can probably work without the butt portion, and use the now butt-less stock as a cheekrest. Uzi pistols and mac 10s, could also be fitted with scorpion evo 3 type cheekrests.

  • Bigbigpoopi

    Why can’t people just shut their mouths?

    • Here we are in an internet comments section. Examples abound.

      Seriously, it’s like a horror movie where there’s always that one idjit who Does The Thing He Was Specifically Told Was A Bad Idea.

    • Because some of us think it would be beneficial in the long run to force this nonsense in to court and get an actual ruling, rather than an agency opinion that changes with the breeze. They’ve been making contradictory arguments for decades, and most of them would have to disintegrate in court, particularly given the burdens and standards of proof for criminal matters.

  • valorius

    I have often times on gun forums chastised these busy body morons that write the ATF for their own personalized approval letter for a product that has already been approved.


    Do not write the ATF regarding already approved products.

  • Emfourty Gasmask

    And of course a bunch of paranoid idiots will flood the ATF with letters asking for the exact same answer. Gun owners are literally their own worst enemy.

    • 22winmag

      I agree. Nothing turns off potential new gun owners like [the people at] the typical gun blog or forum. Lucky for us, TFB tries to rise above all the political and religious ranting. The knife, gear, and grenade launcher reviews are getting a little excessive however.

    • Mystick

      Maybe if the ATF made simple determinations and didn’t obfuscate everything in legalese….

  • BattleshipGrey

    Can we start a pool to take guesses on how long it takes the ATF to reverse this reversal?

    • Emfourty Gasmask

      Give it 2 weeks, after a bunch of idiots spam them with letters like last time.

      • neckbone

        A lot of the clowns there seem to like a big government boot on their neck. Just from some stuff I’ve looked at recently there.

    • Mystick

      6 months. That seems to be the current frequency.

    • neckbone

      Your the guy who thinks machine guns should be illegal anyway.

      • BattleshipGrey

        How do you come to that conclusion? For the record I don’t think that.

  • At least it’s some good news. Trump needs to lean on the atf more though or better yet just disband that corrupt dept.

    • Rick O’Shay

      The only leaning Trump is doing is over his golf clubs in Florida.

      • RSG

        Golfing in between nominating a fine Supreme Court justice. And preparing for Kennedy’s replacement in June. If that’s all Trump does in his 4 years, keeps nominating conservative justices, it’s enough justification for me. Even for reelection. He’ll certainly get at least 3 (Gorsuch, Kennedy and RBG) in these 4 years, and possibly 5 (Breyer and perhaps Thomas can be convinced to retire if The previous picks “work out” to his liking. Thomas would be able to hand pick his replacement in 3 1/2 years).

      • 22winmag

        The people who latched on to Trump as their political savior will follow him over a cliff and forgive ANYTHING Trump does… starting with flip flopping on nearly every campaign promise.

        • Rick O’Shay

          Man, there’s gonna be a lot of tears when the ATF is still standing, HPA doesn’t pass, and there’s still no national reciprocity, the NFA hasn’t been abolished, by the time he’s done.
          I’d be more than willing to eat my words if he somehow pulls it all off though.

          • Military Arms Channel

            I will wager Trump won’t lift a finger to undo any of the anti-guns laws like the NFA, Hughes Amendment, or work to pass national reciprocity. The HPA is the single worst piece legislation I’ve had the displeasure of reading. The dolts that authored it failed to deal with the 14 instances of the word “silencer” used in the GCA of 1968. The GCA defines what parts make a silencer. If the HPA passed in it’s current 1/2 page poorly written form, every single component of the silencer would need to have a serial number and would require a 4473 to transfer them all. It’s a complete bad joke and was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

        • Rogertc1

          yep you voted for Hillary 22winmag. I smell a troll.

  • Rick O’Shay

    I’m 6’5″ and have freakishly long forearms. That’s why my KAK shockwave is set so long. And it’s not “permanently installed” at that length. I can take an allen key and adjust the set screw and change the overall dimensions of the tube and stabilizer in about 5 seconds. So if this is some way for the ATF to STILL try to call various stabilizers stocks, they need to get in touch with KAK and let them know their stabilizers are considered braces.

    • The Punisher

      See Marty Ewer’s post above.

  • William

    Well thanks to SB Tactical for sitting on this news for a month, no doubt to make a big splash for the NRA show. I sold my Evo brace last friggin week to pay for a Tailhook and the related parts for my CZ. I guess I’ll have to get back in line behind the other 10,000 people to buy back a part I just sold. Dangit, I hate the NFA with a passion.

    • CPB

      No need to wait. There isn’t a wrong way to hold a pistol.

  • This applies to all braces that are approved to be a brace unless specifically mentioned otherwise. So don’t go asking if balsa wood and duck tape is shoulderable.

    Further, don’t write the ATF unless your an attorney. You probably think you know what the definition of is, is but you don’t. Just accept it. Attorneys are extremely intelligent, people that went through 3 years of additional schooling to know how to ask a question. If you’re going to die unless your specific question is answered then write it down and pay an attorney to write it correctly and send it in for you. Remember, don’t talk to the police.

    • 22winmag

      What do you call 10,000 attorneys at the bottom of the sea?

      • George Smythson

        A good start… told to me by an attorney…

  • 22winmag

    The ATF and Trump = The co-heavyweight champs of flip flopping.

    • supergun

      Depends on if funding is needed for paycheck.

    • Rogertc1

      What was the option Hillary anti? Would you rather she was elected 22winmag?

  • Rob

    I need to re-read everything, but the “crucial part” doesn’t seem so much to be the highlighted part, but instead “Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder.” …Sounds like you can shoulder a brace to me. Am I misunderstanding this? I need to join the bug pistol and brace club now.

    • Rob

      Big, not bug…

    • Military Arms Channel

      You can shoulder a brace, at least a SB Tactical brace that is. The Blade’s letter says this:

      “Based on our evaluation, FTISB finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a pistol is a “firearm” subject to the GCA provisions; however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA provided the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock.”

      So, until KAK gets a new letter from the ATF it would seem the ATF views the Blade in a different light.

      • neckbone

        You can’t really believe this applies to only this 1 manufacturer.

        • Grammaton Cleric 🇺🇸🎖

          It seems like it to me.

      • Marty Ewer

        Today’s information supersedes the old letter.

      • Grammaton Cleric 🇺🇸🎖

        The interesting thing to me is how this pretty much only benefits SIG and the fact they got the 320 (a piece of junk) military contract may have something to do with it.

    • neckbone

      Maybe next they will say a silencer isn’t a firearm. Or a battle isn’t a silencer?

  • Phillip Cooper

    So can we or can’t we, shoulder a brace now?

    • Keiichi

      Yes, that is true.

    • Mystick

      That is correct.

  • Gregory

    No doubt some idiot will write another letter for clarification and the drama will start over again. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

    • Calavera

      Exactly. Ask Uncle Sam for the time of day, and he’ll take the clock apart and try to explain it to you.

  • jeffrey melton

    As Bill Clinton once said,”It depends on what your definition of is is.” Lawyers are the only people who understand .

    • Mystick

      Which is a problem when mixed with “ignorance of the law is no excuse”… the laws – in aggregate are too complex and have apparently been generated by an industry to ensure future employment – the Bar Association.

      • Military Arms Channel

        The laws do suck and I contend every gun control law is unconstitutional. With that said, ATF opinions are just that, opinions. Until a court decides a case on the matter, their commentary does not carry the weight of law.

        • neckbone

          Exactly! That’s why you have a box of homemade silencers you are working on I heard. How is that going?

          • PaulWVa

            Homemade silencers? ….how cool. I want one to shove into that Samantha Bee’s mouth. May take two….

        • Mystick

          “Opinions” and “Determinations” are different things…. in this case an “opinion” backed by the rule(and force) of law.

          • 1936benz

            Kind of like the “rule (and force) of law” regarding illegal immigration and national security issues? We have reached a point where laws, and the enforcement thereof, are wholly dependent on WHICH laws are being broken and by WHOM. Gun owners and shooting enthusiasts not only shoot at targets, but regarding law enforcement, they ARE the target, whereas other federal laws – including those that are more clearly defined – are simply ignored.

        • I agree, with a caveat. It does not carry the weight of law used offensively, but it can defensively. Official reliance is a tricky but important concept.

  • Mystick

    Of course, if the ATF for some reason comes to your house and sees you possess items that could possibly make a single NFA item if combines, you are assumed to have executed that configuration no matter what.

  • Marty Ewer

    Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article–and that you don’t know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

    I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch—who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject—and very nice about it even though he’s been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that’s making the rounds is limited to one company’s products–or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: “The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade.” So that settles that.

    He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

    1. By “permanent affixing,” ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don’t red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be “temporarily placed” and “perfectly okay to shoulder.” (He didn’t beat around the bush on this topic.)

    2. “Length of pull”—for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces—begins to enter a “gray area” above 13.5″. Above 13.5″ begins “to enter shoulder stock area.” (His words. I believe this has to do with the “comfortableness” aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the “length of pull” for the Blade is approximately 13.13″, so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5″ length. Stay below 13.5″ and according to ATF, it’s okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

    So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

    • Military Arms Channel

      When did the Technical Branch start offering technical advice over the phone? That must be a new development because in the past they’ve required a written inquiry to which they would offer a written response.

      • supergun

        They would never admit, and you would not be able to prove it. It is a day by day thing. One day it is legal. The next day it is illegal. So your @ss is in trouble, depending on who is the President.

      • Marty Ewer

        They called me back today at 2:45 p.m. Eastern and gave me the information over the handsfree in our truck. So maybe that’s when they started. My wife was there and heard the entire conversation. I get it. You don’t like me or my company. Why, I don’t know. And you can say what you want about me. But my wife is no liar.

        • Martin Morinigo

          I don’t think it has anything to do with personal opinions of anyone, it’s a matter of whether or not anyone else but you and whom ever was within hearing range of your conversation can prove such a conversation ever occurred, not whether or not anyone believes you had that conversation or not.
          The issue is that if anyone gets in a situation where they have to show some sort of proof to a cop that shouldering your brace is OK per the ATF, we can’t just tell them that you and your wife had a phone conversation with an undisclosed and unidentified ATF agent.
          But we can show them a copy of letter that SB received.
          Personally, I think you shouldn’t be telling people that it’s ok to shoulder your brace without having said paper in hand. Not that I don’t believe you, which I have no reason not to, it’s just that without the letter there’s no tangible proof that the ATF actually said it is OK to do so.
          Not knocking you, your biz, nor your wife, just pointing out that a letter in hand is worth 1,000,000,000 time more than “Officer, he said over the phone,no, not to me but to another person, that it’s ok.”

          Just my 2¢, which after taxes we all know what that’s worth.

    • supergun

      Excellent comment. What happens to all the people that were charged by the other ATF agents with intent to shoulder. Were they told to scrap their weapons and never buy another one or else?

    • YS

      So, red loctite is permanent for a brace, but not for a muzzle device?

      • Martin Morinigo

        I’m just playing devil’s advocate (read “being an internet jerk”) but I can see why red locktite would not be considered permanent for a muzzle device; it would not hold up because of the heat. At some point it would become loose, due to heat.. But that’s me assuming anyone at the ATF put any thought into that.
        But if a lowly setscrew is enough to be permanent on a brace, than it should also be on a muzzle device.

      • Scott Esse

        red Loctite is classified a permanent adhesive for everything except barrel attachments that affect barrel length

    • Maxpwr

      What was the name and title of the person at ATF you spoke too. Please publish his name and number here so we can contact him and ask for independent verification.

    • ckeltz3

      Never count on a ‘conversation’ to save you at some time in the future…..if it’s not generated in written form, from them, it’s useless.

      • Scott Esse

        even written form means nothing to the ATF, they have been known to replace, mid court trial one of their experts with another with conflicting opinion after the first had already testified, just to ensure conviction, case in point was a burlington wi man convicted of unlawful transferring type 3 firearm when the disconnector broke in his AR that he loaned his neighbor to go target shooting with. I cant locate the case, but it did make national news

    • Thomas Acquinas

      Relying on a verbal representation over the phone (even if it is from that Godly institution called the ATF) is a sure road to legal heart ach. The letter we are discussing is bad enough (it can be changed on a whim by a bureaucrat), but to rely on a phone call is dangerous, and ill-advised. The cost of proving justifiable reliance (on either the letter or the phone call) is more than most of us can afford, let alone pay. I hear Leavenworth is nice this time of year, the heat has not started.

    • carlcasino

      One guy at the ATF insured you ?? I think that is analogous to taking the Guy at the IRS at it’s word the deduction I’m claiming is legal? It is until your auditor (another Guy at the same agency ) says your Fine stands. Whos opinion is correct? Turbo Tax Lawyers or the IRS?

  • supergun

    We need an Executive Order to eliminate the gun act.

  • Tom Currie

    I’m not at all sure that this revision is any less “confusing” but at least this time they did present something passing for logic.

    It does seem that they have admitted that an UNMODIFIED ATF-approved accessory does not magically become an NFA item simply based on usage. This is an important distinction for both the ATF and users. It returns us to the long-standing position where a firearm either is or is not a Class III item based on the physical firearm, not on how some individual holds it.

  • Jeff

    Sounds like someone is in bed with the ATF. You firearms owners forget that gun companies are out to make money just like any other corporation. Don’t trust the NRA, don’t trust the gun manufacturers. My how fast the gun companies come up with a solution to gun legislation… almost like they wrote the rules.

  • Blake

    Shit I wonder if that applies to the Phase 5 Hex buffer tube that puts the Sig Brace a couple inches farther back than it normally would be.

  • Diver6106

    Very sad… THAT is why we have WRITTEN LAWS, so the police can’t arbitrarily arrest you. It is a BASIC principle of a democracy, apparently not understood by the ATF. But now we have some unclear written laws (passed by CONGRESS) subject to wide variation in interpretation. So in the end, they have you if they want to arrest you. I hope lawyers continue to fight for our rights in interpretation of the laws. Unfortunately, I suspect the government will eventually baulk at the letters and fall back to ‘if you want to know’ violate the law and go to court and we will see.

  • Jason Wallentine

    All you have to do is ask “Mother may I”, to open the possibility of a “no”, where once there was only common sense.

    • 95Theses

      And why didn’t the ATF simply use the magic word?

  • carlcasino

    Has the NFA outlived it’s usefulness?? IMHO it is merely a taxing agent. I have passed background checks and held Top Secret clearances since 1957, BUT I could snap at any moment and turn pure psycho. The difference between sanity and insanity is as thin as a razors edge. Way too much emphasis has been placed on the 2nd A as a hunting and sporting protection, which is total nonsense. The 2nd A was insurance to protect the basic document and it’s amendments–Period. The Argument is we only need muskets since that was the weapon of choice during the founding of this Republic. Nonsense ! Citizens have the Constitutional right to have SUFFICIENT arms and ammunition to Protect and Defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign and domestic. Took that Oath in 1957 and it did not have an expiration date. Maybe requiring reading comprehension as a qualifier for holding elective office or being appointed a Judge or even voting for that matter might clear up a lot of the misinformation the media can conjure up. Shall not be Infringed seems pretty plain English to me , same as Shall or May. Even a 1st year law student is taught that and my 9 year old Grand Daughter understands it.

  • Rickey Morris

    I cringe everytime I get a letter from the ATF. It’s an acid stirring feeling that you don’t want to open, but know you have to so you can find out what you may have missed, or they need. Why would you ever contact them (especially before a major event that draws a ton of attention?) If you pinch a Hibernating Bear and brag instead of running, someone needs to lock you away for the safety of the rest of the team. And they thought this was going to prove a point?

  • PaulWVa

    Well that really clears that up …..NOT!

  • SLi-Fox

    Length from the end of the brace to the receiver would have to depend on the length of your arm. Someone 6’4″ will have longer arms than someone who is a “little person” as an extreme example. I’m glad the ATF didn’t mention a certain length.

  • Texas_Squidbilly

    Brace to my shoulder or not, it’s none of their damn business what I do in the woods.

  • Jason Bourne

    “Given the fact that repeated “poking of the bear” caused the Open Letter to happen I say leave well enough alone.”

    Best take away from this article!

  • rjet43

    SB rifle laws are B.S. a pistol is more of a threat than a so called short barreled rifle! Hell back in the cowboy days they had a stock that would fit on a pistol, so i guess that was a short barreled rifle also!