Black Aces Tactical Letter from ATF

DBMJR1 · Aug 26, 2019

If you purchased a firearm from Black Aces Tactical, Specifically Pro Series 5 and/or Pro Series 9, with a barrel less than 18" and a folding stabilizing brace, you are now in possession of an NFA item. As of a letter dated 16Aug2019.

Congratulations. You may have just become a felon, by executive decree.

If this applies to you, I suggest you contact an attorney to plan a course of action.

Bangswitch · Aug 26, 2019

Well that sucks but I called it.

AustinBR · Aug 26, 2019

Can you post the ATF letter?

DBMJR1 · Aug 26, 2019

AustinBR said:
Can you post the ATF letter?

Not easily from work. Ever since photo bucket went South, posting pics has become a pain.

It's dated August 16, 2019 Numbered ' 767000: ARG '.

In the last paragraph it instructs anyone in possession of one of these items to remove the barrel and contact the ATF via Email TampaResponses@ATF.GOV. Include the serial number and model number.

The problem is the OAL in the folded configuration being less than 26".

thperez1972 · Aug 26, 2019

https://www.recoilweb.com/have-a-bl...just-may-have-an-unregistered-aow-152400.html

https://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FB_IMG_15662579995848721.pdf

Magdump · Aug 26, 2019

Doh! Not another pesky ATF letter!

rcm192 · Aug 26, 2019

Im familiar with the letter as well.

Gator 45/70 · Aug 27, 2019

rcm192 said:
Im familiar with the letter as well.

That looks like one of those funky new Mossburg 500's or Remington 870's with a banana ''clip''..... Key world here is ''Funky'', Clip is okay!

thperez1972 · Aug 27, 2019

Did anyone catch that the ATF singled out the folding/collapsible braces when addressing this issue? Are they saying the non-folding/collapsible braces count toward the overall length?

machinedrummer · Aug 27, 2019

Soon ALL braces will be on the chopping block.

Bangswitch · Aug 27, 2019

machinedrummer said:
Soon ALL braces will be on the chopping block.

I fear you are right even though they have been clearly approved as an accessory to a pistol that doesn’t seem to matter anymore. The walk-back on shouldering a brace left me optimistic but this and the bump-stock ban have left me reeling.

This kind of unilateral change in positions is why I believe the ATF (among a whole pot full of Alphabet soup) has reached the end of its usefulness.

Bangswitch · Aug 27, 2019

thperez1972 said:
Did anyone catch that the ATF singled out the folding/collapsible braces when addressing this issue? Are they saying the non-folding/collapsible braces count toward the overall length?

I believe this is the manifestation of the changes discussed here.

https://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?182853-ATF-redefines-what-a-%93pistol%94-is

thperez1972 · Aug 27, 2019

Bangswitch said:
I believe this is the manifestation of the changes discussed here.

https://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?182853-ATF-redefines-what-a-%93pistol%94-is

The previous letter basically said if it folds, it must be folded when measuring and extensions are fine if they contribute to the weapon functioning. Otherwise, any extension is superfluous and does not count.

Fast forward to this new letter. Even though a stock is not required for a shotgun to function, it is in the measurement because a stock is part of the definition of a shotgun. An extension on the not-a-shotguns are only there to hold the brace. It does not help with the function of the weapon. According to the first letter, any extension that doesn't contribute to the function of the weapon isn't measured. So this letter could have included all not-a-shotguns with braces. But it didn't. It narrowed the scope of the opinion to a subset, the folding/collapsible braces. It could be argued that singling out a subset does not mean it doesn't apply to the whole set. Mathematically, that is true. But I can't believe the ATF would tell Black Aces to pull the now NFA items with folding braces but allow them to continue to sell NFA items with non-folding braces. That would mean the non-folding extensions do count toward the overall length even though they don't contribute to the function of the weapon.

AustinBR · Aug 27, 2019

thperez1972 said:
The previous letter basically said if it folds, it must be folded when measuring and extensions are fine if they contribute to the weapon functioning. Otherwise, any extension is superfluous and does not count.

Fast forward to this new letter. Even though a stock is not required for a shotgun to function, it is in the measurement because a stock is part of the definition of a shotgun. An extension on the not-a-shotguns are only there to hold the brace. It does not help with the function of the weapon. According to the first letter, any extension that doesn't contribute to the function of the weapon isn't measured. So this letter could have included all not-a-shotguns with braces. But it didn't. It narrowed the scope of the opinion to a subset, the folding/collapsible braces. It could be argued that singling out a subset does not mean it doesn't apply to the whole set. Mathematically, that is true. But I can't believe the ATF would tell Black Aces to pull the now NFA items with folding braces but allow them to continue to sell NFA items with non-folding braces. That would mean the non-folding extensions do count toward the overall length even though they don't contribute to the function of the weapon.

I find it odd that these letters are issued from ATF field offices and not a centralized location with lawyers.

Bangswitch · Aug 27, 2019

thperez1972 said:
The previous letter basically said if it folds, it must be folded when measuring and extensions are fine if they contribute to the weapon functioning. Otherwise, any extension is superfluous and does not count.

Fast forward to this new letter. Even though a stock is not required for a shotgun to function, it is in the measurement because a stock is part of the definition of a shotgun. An extension on the not-a-shotguns are only there to hold the brace. It does not help with the function of the weapon. According to the first letter, any extension that doesn't contribute to the function of the weapon isn't measured. So this letter could have included all not-a-shotguns with braces. But it didn't. It narrowed the scope of the opinion to a subset, the folding/collapsible braces. It could be argued that singling out a subset does not mean it doesn't apply to the whole set. Mathematically, that is true. But I can't believe the ATF would tell Black Aces to pull the now NFA items with folding braces but allow them to continue to sell NFA items with non-folding braces. That would mean the non-folding extensions do count toward the overall length even though they don't contribute to the function of the weapon.

Ok I read that three or four times. This new letter is specifically targeting the non-function non-definition appendages that fold or collapse. While the first letter targeted all non-function non-definition appendages.

Yeah it’s interesting, I don’t see this as them walking back the first letter either. It seems someone at black aces kicked a hornets nest. I’m not sure why right a second letter to be more specific either though.

Bangswitch · Aug 27, 2019

AustinBR said:
I find it odd that these letters are issued from ATF field offices and not a centralized location with lawyers.

Seems like the original redesign shouldering (yes) letter came from a field office too. Struggling to find it on line. The first *no* letter came from a field office.

MOTOR51 · Aug 27, 2019

machinedrummer said:
Soon ALL braces will be on the chopping block.

Yep. This is the result of poking the bear. These are not the times to push harder for “scarier” weapons. The push should be to show how great gun owners are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

thperez1972 · Aug 27, 2019

Bangswitch said:
Ok I read that three or four times. This new letter is specifically targeting the non-function non-definition appendages that fold or collapse. While the first letter targeted all non-function non-definition appendages.

Yeah it’s interesting, I don’t see this as them walking back the first letter either. It seems someone at black aces kicked a hornets nest. I’m not sure why right a second letter to be more specific either though.

If all non-function non-definition appendages are not to be measured (according to the first letter), why would the ATF only target the folding ones? It's as if the second letter believes only the folding ones aren't measure. And there's evidence for that conclusion. The ATF knows what BAT (Black Aces Tactical) is selling. The ATF told BAT to stop selling the NFA items and BAT pulled all NFA items off their site. BAT continues to sell the fixed braces and market them as "no NFA." The ATF has to know this. The fixed stocks were not covered in the letter and the ATF didn't tell BAT to stop selling them as non-NFA. The only way that can happen is if the ATF considers the (non-function non-definition) fixed braces to be part of the measurement.

It's possible, based on Austin's observation, the right hand doesn't really know what the left hand is doing.

Bangswitch · Aug 27, 2019

The first letter actually sites folding braces, but then goes on to explain that non-folding extensions that are strictly accessories could be on the chopping block as well. They also mentioned that the Tech group was the only section of the ATF who was qualified to give guidance on this subject, and any conflicting guidance should be superseded by this letter.

https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/atf-folded-brace_redacted.pdf

Go home ATF you’re drunk.

Black Aces Tactical Letter from ATF

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Madame Mayor's Fiefdom

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

Madame Mayor's Fiefdom

ESSAYONS

Don’t troll me bro!

Sic semper tyrannis

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Make your own luck

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

ESSAYONS

Well-Known Member

Log in

Forum statistics