Arm Brace and State Legality?

[SecuritySixShooter]

First I wanted to say that I am a long time lurker but first time poster so bear with me.  My question is on the legality of arm brace as it applies to TN State Law.  I am aware that the ATF has approved of the various arm braces and also stated that it does not become an SBR by shouldering the arm brace.  My concern however is the application of state law in this regards.  39-17-1301 defines a rifle as:

 

"Rifle" means any firearm designed, made or adapted to be fired from the shoulder and to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a projectile through a rifled bore by a single function of the trigger;

 

 

Specifically my concern is for the word adapted in this definition.  Could it be used to define a pistol with an arm brace as an adaptation to fire from the shoulder and thus make it a rifle which would be illegal to possess (obviously as an SBR if this definition was applied)?  Does the ATF determination have much sway where it concerns state law?   

[monkeylizard]

<<Redacted>>

Edited October 21, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Omega]

First I wanted to say that I am a long time lurker but first time poster so bear with me.  My question is on the legality of arm brace as it applies to TN State Law.  I am aware that the ATF has approved of the various arm braces and also stated that it does not become an SBR by shouldering the arm brace.  My concern however is the application of state law in this regards.  39-17-1301 defines a rifle as:

 

"Rifle" means any firearm designed, made or adapted to be fired from the shoulder and to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a projectile through a rifled bore by a single function of the trigger;

 

 

Specifically my concern is for the word adapted in this definition.  Could it be used to define a pistol with an arm brace as an adaptation to fire from the shoulder and thus make it a rifle which would be illegal to possess (obviously as an SBR if this definition was applied)?  Does the ATF determination have much sway where it concerns state law?   

The fact that you CAN shoulder the brace does not mean it is FOR the shoulder.  You can shoulder the buffer tube of a pistol with no brace, that does not make it a rifle.  So you are good with the brace since the ATF has deemed it as NOT a rifle with one on.

 

Edit: speeling

Edited October 21, 2014 by Omega

[Oh Shoot]

<<Redacted>>

 

Don't know why you edited your post, it was correct originally.

 

ATF has never in its history ruled about how you shoot a firearm, only whether a configuration is lawful or not. In the case of the SIG brace, they even issued another opinion that "misuse" of the device does not constitute an illegal act.

 

So far (until Minority Report comes to fruition) intent is not a factor, and a stock is required for the firearm to be "adapted" for firing from the shoulder, and the SIG brace is not a stock.

 

As far as the individual states, have not heard of any, even the commie ones, claiming the SIG brace constitutes having a stock either. Certainly TN and most of the other free states accede to Federal firearm law unless they have specific ones that differ. TN only has one that I know of, a definitional statute that a handgun has under a 12" barrel, though the only thing I can think of that would affect is what you can legally carry with an HCP.

 

- OS

Edited October 21, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

I edited it because once I thought about it, I wasn't sure that the state law couldn't still be applied. I knew I was right about the ATF saying "we don't care...it was designed for your arm", but I'm not sure how the state might decide on it.

 

Technically the pistol is adapted for being attached to the forearm, not for being fired from the shoulder. The fact that someone decided to do that doesn't change what the adpatation was meant for, but I wouldn't want to argue that in front of a state judge.

 

 

So far (until Minority Report comes to fruition) intent is not a factor, and a stock is required for the firearm to be "adapted" for firing from the shoulder, and the SIG brace is not a stock.

 

 

I don't see that anywhere in the state law about the adaptation needing to be a stock. I think we're relying on the ATF ruling that the device is for one-handed shooting, not for shoulder-firing. But the fact the ATF says they don't care how it's used could be used to argue that it is indeed an adaptation to be fired from the shoulder. The ATF is acknowledging that the device can be used to fire from the shoulder even though they still don't consider it a stock. State law doesn't specifically say "stock" that I can find, so is it an adaptation to be fired from the shoulder?

Edited October 21, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

I edited it because once I thought about it, I wasn't sure that the state law couldn't still be applied.

State laws on firearms can be more restrictive than federal law. Most all states' firearm laws are, including TN's, just a matter of degree. Sky's the limit unless overturned by federal courts, very few of which have.
 

I don't see that anywhere in the state law about the adaptation needing to be a stock. ...

Our state law doesn't say anything beyond short definition of rifle, which echoes federal one. Anywhere we don't have a specific law that differs, TN has always acceded to federal definitions and rulings. ATF has never ruled that anything but the addition of a stock constitutes making a rifle.

 

Could you be arrested for having an unstamped SBR in TN using the SIG brace? Sure, if some jurisdiction wants to call it a stock. Then it would play out from there in court, where the defense would almost certainly prevail, with a decent chance of successful lawsuit to boot.

 

- OS

Edited October 21, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[SecuritySixShooter]

Our definitions are a little different than the federal versions.  For instance this is the federal definition of rifle.  

 

Federal definition of Rifle:

The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

 

vs TN definition:

"Rifle" means any firearm designed, made or adapted to be fired from the shoulder and to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a projectile through a rifled bore by a single function of the trigger;

 

The federal version doesn't have the adapted language in it.  This is the real meat of what is bothering me about the arm brace.  I think if a pistol with an arm brace can be considered a rifle then it can be considered an SBR.  I also think this is an all or nothing type of deal.  The law regulates possession not how it is used so the brace is either legal or not.  

[Oh Shoot]

Our definitions are a little different than the federal versions.  For instance this is the federal definition of rifle.  

 

Federal definition of Rifle:

The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

 

vs TN definition:

"Rifle" means any firearm designed, made or adapted to be fired from the shoulder and to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire a projectile through a rifled bore by a single function of the trigger;

 

The federal version doesn't have the adapted language in it.  This is the real meat of what is bothering me about the arm brace.  I think if a pistol with an arm brace can be considered a rifle then it can be considered an SBR.  I also think this is an all or nothing type of deal.  The law regulates possession not how it is used so the brace is either legal or not.  

 

"designed or redesigned, made or remade" vs. "designed, made or adapted"

 

It would still ultimately come down to distinction of having a stock or not. The brace "adapts" he firearm to be used on the forearm. Unlike the feds, if TN wants to prosecute you for "misusing" it by firing from the shoulder, then it would also be illegal to fire a Glock with two hands, or a long gun from the hip or a 1911 using the feet.

 

Methinks you worry too much - TN would have to enact some statute to specifically make its use unlawful, like designating it as a stock. And who thinks anyone really cares anyway. Hell, they've already passed a law you can manufacture an SBR from scratch in TN if you like with no federal oversight at all.

 

- OS

Edited October 21, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[ccryder53]

My Yugo AK-47 Pistol Model PAP M92PV with the arm brace is a pistol. Even if I choose to use the forearm brace other than on the forearm, this is still a pistol, not an SBR.

So that's the bottom line.

Neil

[Hershmeister]

What if you attached an arm brace to a shoelace? Is that an SBR machinegun? [emoji48]

[Dolomite_supafly]

What if you attached an arm brace to a shoelace? Is that an SBR machinegun? [emoji48]

Well the ATF has determined that a 14" long shoelace IS a machine gun when attached to a gun.

 

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

[Omega]

Well the ATF has determined that a 14" long shoelace IS a machine gun when attached to a gun.

 

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

Good thing I use the 16" long shoestring or I would be in trouble. :ugh:

[monkeylizard]

I suggest that you use 16.5" laces, just to err on the side of caution.

Edited December 1, 2014 by monkeylizard

[Hershmeister]

I'll use the California compliant velcro fastners

[DaveTN]

Specifically my concern is for the word adapted in this definition.  Could it be used to define a pistol with an arm brace as an adaptation to fire from the shoulder and thus make it a rifle which would be illegal to possess (obviously as an SBR if this definition was applied)?  Does the ATF determination have much sway where it concerns state law?

Anything is possible. Antonio Sales was charged under 39-17-1302 for possession of a PLR-16 in Sumner County Tennessee. There is no case law because Sales made a plea agreement that required him to get rid of the weapon, in return charges were dropped. Rumor is that he could no longer afford the legal battle; but I don’t know that to be fact.

The fact that BATF has deemed a firearm “legal” would help you in court; but I don’t believe it trumps state law or would keep you from being charged.

We can argue the legalities all day long, but without case law the question you have to answer for yourself is this issue over a Sig Brace something you want to take on, and can you afford to do it?

[Dolomite_supafly]

A pistol with a Sug brace is not a "firearm".

I have said it before and will say it again. Just because the ATF has chosen not to prosecute does not mean any other agency will not either.

And as far as our state law a defense to prosecution is not a defense to arrest or jail. During the court case is where you would present your defense. Just so happens officers choose not to arrest once presented your "defense".

[Omega]

I suggest that you use 16.5" laces, just to err on the side of caution.

No, I am ok the aglets are permanently attached which makes up the extra cautious 1". 

[Grayfox54]

Y'all might wannna hold on  minute. Seems BATF&E may be back peddling. Ot at least there's some confusion in the ranks. 

Here's an article I got in e-mail last week: End of the Sig Brace?

Bear in mind that the guy who wrote this letter is the "ACTING" Chief of the BATF’s Firearms Technology Branch.  Lord only knows what ruleing comes down when they get a permanent chief.

Wouldn't be the first time the feds have changed their minds or the first time the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Also remember that BATF&E can change the rules whenever they want to and have done so in the past. 

Looks like the lid is loose on this can of worms.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Y'all might wannna hold on  minute. Seems BATF&E may be back peddling. Ot at least there's some confusion in the ranks. 

Here's an article I got in e-mail last week: End of the Sig Brace?

Bear in mind that the guy who wrote this letter is the "ACTING" Chief of the BATF’s Firearms Technology Branch.  Lord only knows what ruleing comes down when they get a permanent chief.

Wouldn't be the first time the feds have changed their minds or the first time the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. Also remember that BATF&E can change the rules whenever they want to and have done so in the past. 

Looks like the lid is loose on this can of worms.

 

That opinion last week was regarding shouldering a Sig brace on a "firearm", not a "pistol". The Sig brace is legal to shoulder on a "pistol" but there has never been an opinion on shouldering a "firearm" with the Sig brace, at least not until last week. A "firearm" is a weapon that does not meet the definition of a "rifle", "pistol" or "shotgun". And the specimen submitted for an opinion was a pistol grip shotgun and a pistol grip shotgun does not meet the definition of a "rifle", "pistol" or "shotgun" so by default it is a "firearm". This was the first opinion regarding shouldering a Sig brace on a "firearm".

 

The ATF's opinion regarding shouldering a Sig brace on a "pistol" has not changed with this opinion.

 

The opinions are about two totally different types of weapons in the eyes of the ATF.

 

Personally I think it will come out that it will be illegal to shoulder a AR with a Sig brace AND a VFG. That is because adding a VFG changes the classification of a weapon from "pistol" to "firearm". And in doing so it will not contradict the opinion on shouldering a "pistol" with a Sig brace. It will also be in line with the recent opinion regarding shouldering a "firearm" with the Sig brace.

[Guest Stoveman]

Don't know why you edited your post, it was correct originally.

 

ATF has never in its history ruled about how you shoot a firearm, only whether a configuration is lawful or not. In the case of the SIG brace, they even issued another opinion that "misuse" of the device does not constitute an illegal act.

 

So far (until Minority Report comes to fruition) intent is not a factor, and a stock is required for the firearm to be "adapted" for firing from the shoulder, and the SIG brace is not a stock.

 

As far as the individual states, have not heard of any, even the commie ones, claiming the SIG brace constitutes having a stock either. Certainly TN and most of the other free states accede to Federal firearm law unless they have specific ones that differ. TN only has one that I know of, a definitional statute that a handgun has under a 12" barrel, though the only thing I can think of that would affect is what you can legally carry with an HCP.

 

- OS

 

 

I believe MD falls in that category and even we can purchase them. 

 

Just picked one up in November to celebrate the Hogan victory. The standard capacity PMag was purchased across the river in VA......

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by Stoveman

[Guest tangojuliet]

Well the ATF has determined that a 14" long shoelace IS a machine gun when attached to a gun.

 

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

 

Well the ATF has determined that a 14" long shoelace IS a machine gun when attached to a gun.

 

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

so the shoe lace i had on my 22 to hold a sling turned it into a machine gun :O why didnt i know that