As expected, the Department of Justice has announced proposed rulemaking that would regulate braced pistols as short barrel rifles under the National Firearms Act. As the DOJ’s press release states . . .
The department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make clear that the statutory restrictions on short-barreled rifles apply to pistols that are equipped with certain stabilizing braces and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The National Firearms Act imposes heightened regulations on short-barreled rifles because they are easily concealable, can cause great damage, and are more likely to be used to commit crimes. But companies now sell accessories that make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements. These requirements are important public safety measures because they regulate the transfer of these dangerous weapons and help ensure they do not end up in the wrong hands. The proposed rule would clarify when these attached accessories convert pistols into weapons covered by these heightened regulations.
According to the ATF’s “factoring criteria” for what will constitute a SBR, the new rules would only regulate braces that have “objective design features and characteristics” that make it clear the braced pistol was designed to be shouldered.
The ATF says . . .
This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.
OK. If the proposed rule is approved, would this be regulated under the NFA? . . .
Would this? . . .
The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.
The ATF says the new rulemaking would . . .
-
- Amend the definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition to clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached “stabilizing brace” that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
- Set forth a worksheet “Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” ATF Worksheet 4999, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the criteria that ATF considers when evaluating firearm samples that are submitted with an attached “stabilizing brace” or similar component or accessory.
The devil will, of course, be in the details of those criteria. How clear and objective will they be? Will they be objective enough for a manufacturer to design, build, and market a brace without risk of it being declared that it’s “designed to be fired from the shoulder?” We shall see. But bet on whatever “objective standards” they publish to have enough wiggle room to give the ATF plenty of room to maneuver in virtually any situation.
Again, as with the proposed regulation of 80% lowers and “ghost gun” kits, the public will have 90 days to comment on the proposed new pistol brace rules once the language is published in the federal register.
In addition, the DOJ also published “model legislation” for states to uses in writing their own “extreme risk protection order” or “red flag” firearm confiscation laws.
The department also published model legislation and detailed commentary that will make it easier for states to craft “extreme risk protection orders” authorizing courts to temporarily bar people in crisis from accessing firearms. By allowing family members or law enforcement to intervene and to petition for these orders before warning signs turn into tragedy, “extreme risk protection orders” can save lives. They are also an evidence-based approach to the problem. The model legislation, developed after consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, provides a framework that will help more states enact these sensible laws.
You can read the DOJ’s proposed red flag language here. For an indication of the POV of those who wrote this thing, the DOJ’s ideal “red flag” law language would allow the confiscation order to be renewed an infinite number of time, effectively disarming the target of such an order for life.
How many gun industry “stakeholders” do you suppose the DOJ consulted when drawing this up?
Unless there were a grandfather clause, this would clearly be a 5th Amendment violation. I put in a question to my legal counsel (my wife) about this.
The gov does not give a flying F about 5 amendment violations –See bumpstocks
Clearly. My attorney sent me the opinion on the Maryland bump stock/trigger actuator ban:
Though SB-707 may make the personal property economically worthless, owners are “aware of th[at] possibility” in areas where the State has a “traditionally high degree of control.” Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1027-28. We can think of few types of personal property that are more heavily regulated than the types of devices that are prohibited by SB-707. And, “government regulation—by definition—involves the adjustment of rights for the public good.”
So basically, because the state heavily regulates guns, gun owners should expect this kind of regulation and therefore purchase guns and gun parts at their own risk.
Unbelievable.
Not sure the 5th applies here. The govt isn’t making expost facto law saying you committed a crime by buying a pistol in the past, its saying your weapon is no longer a pistol. It’s a shitty decision either way for millions of people that own these guns.
Cato, so property rights be damned? The options presented offer no relief for loss of property, or the use thereof. Destroy it, whether literal or in effect, or pay us $200 to keep it. Everyone needs to harp on that point when this hits the federal register.
Regardless, I will not comply.
MRA0331
There is no relief under the 5th amendment for owning an unregistered NFA item. No one is threatening to take your AR pistol because according to the govt, it is no longer an AR pistol.
Sucks ass, but if you go to court saying the govt is violating your 5th amendment rights you will lose and be a felon. THEN the govt will take away your non-AR-pistol pistol and every other gun you own.
This is what your friends and neighbors voted for, it was no secret this was coming.
But the brace was not an NFA item when purchased. By changing the status of braces, This may not fall under the takings clause, but it is definitely depriving us of property without due process of law (although I guess the 9th Circuit could hold a kangaroo court and that would qualify as due process). However, SCOTUS takes a dim view on retroactive legal action. The unanimous Palomar-Santiago decision bolsters that.
No one is going to charge you with a crime because you bought a pistol prior to the decision. That would be retroactive. No one depriving you of anything, you have to register under current NFA rules and not all braces are affected.
There will be lawsuits and challenges to the new rules if implemented and we’ll have to see if they stand. I think the fact there are millions of these weapons out there and the fact ATF would need years to go through all the applications will have an effect on how or if this goes through.
Trump appointed 10 (one third) of the judges on the 9th circuit, I don’t think they are still as liberal as people think.
Rokurota,
You do realize that the U.S. Supreme Court cheerfully allows fedzilla to declare something as contraband which was previously legal to own–and claims that does not violate the Fourth nor the Fifth Amendment.
Of course we have to always be aware of the super powerful and magical incantation which fedzilla can use to subvert any right (Constitutionally enumerated or otherwise): “public safety” and “compelling government interest”.
5th amendment, 2nd amendment, 100th admentment yada, yada, yada…
Let’s cut the chase…The 1968 Gun Control Act needs to be ripped from the pages based on the fact that Gun Control walks hand in hand with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, Eugenics and other race based atrocities attributed to the democRat Party. Anyone want to wager on how long a 1968 Noose Control Act would be tolerated?
Expect biden and doj crap when you have a politically inept mob of gun talkers going after POTUS DJT after he stepped in and blocked Congress from going much further than bump stock contraptions. Then you have the same mob unloading on the NRA over the actions of a few bad apples, etc. The mob is quick to put everyone under the microscope…everyone but themselves.
As for Gun Control…Where are any mob demands to Congress for action to abolish Gun Control over its racist and genocidal roots? Their silence is deafening.
Everything you said is true- my only quibble is with “The 1968 Gun Control Act needs to be ripped from the pages based on the fact that Gun Control walks hand in hand with slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK, lynching, Eugenics and other race based atrocities attributed to the democRat Party”
GCA 1968 needs to be repealed because it violates our rights guaranteed under article 2. The fact it’s also modeled on Nazi (literally) laws and has racist roots is just icing on the cake.
It is NOT modeled on Not Z gun laws. It’s modeled on Weimar Republic gun laws which the Not Zs inherited and found to be quite helpful in figuring out which undesirables had guns. This is why we warn people that laws passed under an administration you like will be used against you by an administration you do not like in the future.
Hey, TTAG management –
How about asking Jeremy or Nick to show an example or 3 of firearms that would be legal under those rules?
Hmmmm…and this solves crime how? At least in Maryland there was only one murder out of 450+ last year that was committed with a “rifle.” Way to go ATF with your ridiculous determinations that do NOTHING to get guns out of the hands of criminals.
FBI/UCR stats categorize weapons by ammunition type not the arbitrary ATF “rulemaking” so it’s more accurate to say “Rifle Caliber Weapon” since any crime committed with a rifle caliber weapon ends up on the FBI list which maxes out at 300 deaths via “Rifle Caliber Weapon” in any given year.
Remember many crime weapons are never recovered so all they can go by is the caliber.
Well, there it is, as we all suspected they only backed down until Biden was in office and then came back swinging.
Some people in this comment section voted for this.
Fair, but why didn’t Trump and the republicans fire all these ass-clowns when they had the chance? Or dismantle Obamacare? Or gut the GCA? Or or or…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-anyone…no matter which way you look at it, the anti-freedom crowd is deeply entrenched in American institutions, and they should have been rooted out when there was that chance. Now there isnt.
It is easier to get rid of an elected official than a Federal bureaucrat, particularly in the Senior Executive Service.
“Or dismantle Obamacare? Or gut the GCA? Or or or…”
The filibuster, the filibuster, the filibuster….
America has been over run. Politicians have/are accomplishing what armies of the world feared to attempt/couldn’t accomplish. Libturd politicians are the army conquering America.,,,,,without a shot fired in defense….yet.
That’s right I voted this. Trump was a far greater threat to democracy by being unpresidential and racist 24/7. These democrats might take our guns but at least we now have a presidential president.
Wow you’re ignorant.
Do not Procreate!
Right there…That response leads me to conclude the author of it isn’t posting a serious comment but rather trolling people with an obviously outrageous statement. Well played!
Pay no attention…
Yep. In fact it might not even be the person it claims to be. With no login or gravatar it could be anyone who decided to type Enuf into the name box. Not that Enuf doesn’t have issues, but that post seems far fetched for him.
If Putin snaps Bidens neck in Geneva and claims the senile old fart fell on his head,
has a crime been committed?
Just asking because I don’t think so.
I’m not a commie but I think that Biden is.
BTW: Biden is far more racist then Trump ever was.
He’s old school racist, so racist that he doesn’t even know the crap he says is racist.
You believe in fairy tales and are an enemy of he constitution.
Dear enuf (you Leftist, fascist POS),
Please blow it out your @$$.
Love, LampOfDiogenes
Biden is a doddering fool who either turns into a high school bully or Grandpa Simpson yelling at clouds whenever his handlers don’t keep him glued to a teleprompter. On national television he’s challenged multiple people to push-up contests to settle debates like some meathead frat boy. He called a union autoworker all sorts of nasty things on film when the autoworker called him out for the exact sort of anti-gun BS this article is about, and Biden dared him to “go outside” and fight like some sort of drunk hillbilly. He called a polite young liberal woman a dog-faced liar during the Iowa caucus debates. Is that “presidential??”
Do you have any idea who Joe Biden is? He’s the self-proclaimed “father of the Patiot Act,” and he was the biggest Iraq War simp in the DNC. He doesn’t believe in anonymity or free speech on the internet because it might interfere with the official narrative, as per an interview he gave to the NYT. Can’t have us plebs speaking out after all! He’s weakened search and seizure protections, free speech and privacy protections, gun rights, you name it he hates it. Well- in all fairness he hasn’t attacked the third amendment yet, so one point to him I guess.
Get bent. Biden has objectively spent 47 years doing everything he can to erode every constitutional right, and acted like a loud jackass the entire time he did it. That’s the truth and you only look as dumb and obstinate as Biden when you try to defend him here.
Projectiledysfunction,
Biden was an idiot BEFORE he became senile. When he was a Senator, there was an actual saying around the Capitol, “The most reliable guide to being right on foreign policy is to find out what Biden is doing, and do the opposite.” There was another saying, “If you don’t like Biden’s ‘principles’, don’t worry – he has others.”
Yes, Biden is a creep, and a bully, and a moron (apologies to morons), reliably wrong on EVERY issue, and a serial child molester and sexual predator. He is also the face of the modern, “Progressive” Dimocrat party. Ponder that for a while.
Enuf, I can’t recall the last time I heard someone (outside the far left) have priorities that are that screwed up.
Enuf….do you fetch, sit up, shake and roll over?? You certainly responded as a well trained Useful Idiot to the Libturds “dog whistles”……unpresidential and racist
money money money money
Clearly there is a clear and present danger of America being awash in braced pistols being used to kill flocks of nuns on street corners.
Seriously they are trying to ban something that isn’t an issue.
These are laws in search of problems that don’t exist.
But that won’t stop the federal government.
It is much more important to get your local counties or states to create 2A Heavens where these laws won’t apply.
Just read all the outraged commentary about Judge Benitez’s analogy of an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife (all of which miss the pint of the analogy completely) and you see why this is an “issue.” the game is to ban all ARs or require registration of those under the NFA that they cannot ban.
“…the game is to ban all ARs or require registration of those under the NFA that they cannot ban.”
Why we need an AR ban to be granted SCOTUS cert. so they can be ruled expressly constitutional…
Nah, they are laws/regulations in search of Patriots to criminalize.
Our you COULD ya know not use a brace like everyone did 10 or 11 years ago…are you “back the blue” types still gonna hug ’em when they bust you for what was legal the day before?!?
I do prefer an SBR with the real stock to a brace, even though there are lots more brace options that don’t look as clunky and weird as the original ones. That said, the arm brace didn’t originate in some back alley with criminals, companies have been making and selling these with the ATF’s blessing (which waffled around a couple times).
It is very concerning they think they can just rewrite the definition of a rifle. Again, let’s make criminals of people with guns in a “bad configuration” instead of just going after people who do bad things like murder people. I don’t really care if a murderer has a short, long, purple, or all plastic gun to kill, the issue is the killer.
Even if you take all the braces away, it is just as easy to stick a stock on an AR pistol if a criminal wanted to use it for a crime. Unless they plan to ban pistols too as “easily convertible to an SBR.”
They cannot rewrite the definition of rifle, or receiver, readily, firearm, suppressor, etc.
That takes legislation. And no legislation can violate our birthright to keep and bear arms as we deem appropriate.
They can shove this where the sun don’t shine.
You missed the part where they turned bump stocks into machine guns with a stroke of the pen. No legislation involved. Welcome to the real world.
God,
In a rational world, you would be absolutely correct. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has countenanced numerous example of governmental theft just as egregious. SCOTUS apparently has a reading comprehension issue, when it comes to the Constitution.
Without the brace the same weapon becomes easier to conceal.
So what do they really want?
Because. . . more accurate. . .more shootier. . . spraying from the hip. . . pistol grip. . . high-capacity magazine. . . barrel shroud. . . muzzle brake. . . silencer. . . thing in the back that goes up. . . compass in the stock. . . thing that tells time. . . cop-killing bullets. . . armor-piercing. . .600 rounds a minute. . . 30 calibers. . . weapon of war. . . no place on our streets. . . two blasts from a shotgun. . . porch. . . babies, minorities, and puppies. . . mass shootings. . . epidemic. . . schools. . .
Other than that, I got nothing.
Thank you to the f#cked RINOs and the f#cked Libertarians for this executive level rule change. All who said Donald Trump was not a friend of the Second Amendment. And who sat out the election and did not vote. Or they voted for Joe Biden. Because they say the Republicans and the Democrats are the same.
Or was the election stolen???
The same f#ckup gun owners keep voting for the Democrats hoping they will legalize marijuana someday??? That will never happen. Except in states where they legalized marijuana and then took your gun rights away. And a lot of “freedom lovers” are really happy with that Exchange.
“Thank you to the f#cked RINOs and the f#cked Libertarians for this executive level rule change.”
You mean like the executive-level rule change regarding Bump Stocks? You know, the one that Trump initiated and championed? You might want to cover up, your statism is showing.
to Anton Solomyr
Show me where the “Gun community” supports a low cost rapid fire gun for sale to the general public??? On TTAG the people with 6 or 7 gun safes and their granddads shotgun say “it’s just a waste of ammo” to have a machine gun.
And what will they say when the government comes for the ECHO triggers??? I hear they were banned in California. But they will let you sh!t and piss in public while you are smoking weed.
Well this libertarian was telling statist cucks like you that Trump was anything but a friend to the 2A community when he banned bump stocks by executive fiat, and said “Take the guns first, due process second” in regards to Red Flags. What can I say, Fudd’s gonna Fudd.
They dont care. People like Chris T in Kentucky will take it up the behind when it’s from someone they like. They will ask for more as long as it’s a Republican.
I don’t believe Libertarians really believe in Liberty. And I don’t believe Libertarians support private property rights.
“Libertarian Party Chair Tweets That Armed Lawyers Defending Their Property Are Criminals”
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/libertarian-party-chair-tweets-that-armed-lawyers-defending-their-property-are-criminals/
Rand Paul and Ron Paul are libertarians also. I am also in that category. I hate the libertarian party. It doesn’t reflect libertarians. I mean by your logic I should show you the clip of take the guns first and due process after from trump to say all republicans are anti gun. How is that so confusing for you?
to MRA0331
The congress never sent a pro gun bill to President Trump to sign. That is how our system works. So he had to use executive orders to get any pro gun issues into action. OK now, do you understand???
He did not repeal any of the Bush import bans. He could ahve done that with a phone and pen. I have explained to you many times that there is a difference between big L Libertarians (party) and small l libertarians (people who believe in liberty), and also that libertarianism suffered a right/left split around 2016, mainly over Trump. Many of the people you are insulting are actually on your fucking side on guns and freedom, but if you keep belittling them they may very stop helping you.
So first, congress did never send a bill to Trump’s desk, but that alone doesn’t make Trump pro-gun or anti-gun. His comments on red flags and executive order on bump stocks do make him decidedly anti-gun.
Second, your assessment of libertarians is again way off. As mentioned elsewhere, we are not a monolith, and are divided into partisan Big L Libertarians, and ideological little l libertarians. The party is fucked, like all parties. If you’re going to bash libertarians, it’s fair game on the partisans, but I’d venture to say you have more in common with ideological libertarians than you’d ever be willing to admit.
Trump was more of a friend to the 2nd Amendment than all politically impotent Libertardians combined..
None of you has ever done a damned thing that secured or expanded our rights in any way.
Darn those libertarians. How dare they want to take power then leave you alone?
Libertarians supported the lockdown. They supported the forced closing of churches. And at the same time, they supported strip clubs and Walmart being allowed to stay open. They supported tyranny.
Ep. 1833 Did the Libertarian Party Ignore the Biggest Issue of 2020?
Tom woods show Feb 2021, video 35 min long
You know Tom Woods is a libertarian, right? You know he tried in 2019 to implement a plan for right libertarians to take over the party? While it didn’t succeed it did shake things up, You are posting a libertarian complaining about his political party.
But all you Republicans are anti guns fascists so why I am even bothering to explain things to you?
Fuck you, will not comply, come and take them.
What is the plan to push back on this? Is there a comment timespan for this?
They have to address each unique comment, so it could take years with enough good comments. The down side is they can bundle similar comments and address the bundles.
“This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.”
EVERY brace is designed for that exact purpose, therefor, not braces would be subject to this new bullshit
I am six feet tall with fairly average proportions and have had the opportunity to try shouldering a few different types and have yet to try one that gave me a long enough length of pull to shoot comfortably and accurately. To me all are just stabilizing braces, but I am sure that will not satisfy Michael Bloomberg’s henchmen and women!
Simple, don’t install short eye relief sights or optics. You can’t argue that it is designed to be used as a brace if the optics can only be used if shouldered
You haven’t read the document. They have a point system. 4 of more points, it’s an SBR. the sba3 and any adjustable brace like it is an automatic 4. Optics or not.
“This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.”
We can use that against them.
Force them to objectively define what makes a brace compliant, or non-compliant. The brace companies will do the rest.
Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ 101, people.
“Force the enemy to live by their own rules”…
“This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.”
The second photo shows an SB Tactical pistol brace conforming to a forearm.
Realistically, what does that mean for the SB Tactical pistol brace? Does SB Tactical send the brace mounted to a pistol to the BATF for an official determination letter?
The BATF has claimed they will no longer be issuing those letters. Or is the BATF going to start observing gun ranges and start making arrests of persons using a brace pressed against their shoulder?
Well, on the plus side, he’s getting *close* to forming complete sentences.
Where have you been widdle troll?
For DAYS you’ve been missing, and TTAG management keeps deleting your pathetic sniveling.
This is how you spell loser – “Baaaaaahahahahaha”… 😉
An advantage of living in SoCal is the beautiful beaches in one direction, and the wide open desert in the other. I take my standard handguns to the local range, and all the rest of the goodies out to the privacy of the desert.
Oh the fear of getting shot by a Lethal SBR instead instead of a 16″ Carbine!
The DOJ claims,
“The National Firearms Act imposes heightened regulations on short-barreled rifles because they are easily concealable, can cause great damage, and are more likely to be used to commit crimes. But companies now sell accessories that make it easy for people to convert pistols into these more dangerous weapons without going through the statute’s background check and registration requirements.”
Hey DOJ , tell me how adding a brace to a pistol makes it more “easily concealable.”
It doesn’t. On the contrary, it makes a pistol less concealable, duh. So according to the DOJ’s own logic, they should be in favor of it, but they’re not because “scary-looking!”
And tell me how adding a brace to a pistol cause more “damage” than a pistol without a brace or makes it “more dangerous.”
The fact is that it does not increase the “damage” or “danger” at all — it simply makes the pistol more accurate, which makes the pistol safer by avoiding collateral damage such as you would get by using the “spray and pray” technique.
In other words, the DOJ is lying. (So what else is new?)
“short-barreled rifles … are more likely to be used to commit crimes.” – and yet, out of an estimated 10+ million braces pistols, how many have actually been used to commit crimes? 2? Which of those crimes couldn’t have been committed equally effectively with either an unbraced pistol or a 16″ barreled rifle? It’s a thoroughly bullshit statement.
I realize that this is all preaching to the choir, or whistling past a graveyard; pick your metaphor. . .
However, that line, “. . . are more likely to be used to commit crimes.” jumped out at me too. I would be interested in seeing the data that backs that up.
All that said, I am just hoping that there will be a quick and easy registration period. Of course, once I have an SBR permit I will get rid of the brace and put a proper folding stock on my CZ Scorpion.
“All that said, I am just hoping that there will be a quick and easy registration period.”
Easier for us is to have them define a legal brace “clearly and objectively”.
Failing that (don’t worry, we can deal with that in the courts), a grace period and a waiver of the tax is in in order…
What is the actual freaking rule???
It depends what day it is.
“We’ll know it when we see it.” — BATFE
Hide your dogs, folks.
You can download a PDF of the proposed rule along with the worksheet and examples with pictures.
I would like to echo an earlier reply. Fuck the ATF, fuck the government, and fuck everyone who enforces this, if it comes to pass. Come take bitch, I will not comply.
It’s idiots like you and the other echo that give proposals like this and the other side something to copy and use as evidence of “crazy gun owners” and actually hurt our side. We are all angry but I’m not going to fkn die or lose my family over this. Why don’t you just take it off and hide it with all your other technically illegal crap? So you are ready to go down fighting over your blade?? Have you been shooting your old bump-stock at the range in front of everyone to let the world know how defiant you are? Your coat hanger modified AR? Your fuel filter sound moderator?? I thought not. How about you just shut up and do you and stop being a poster child for Biden’s BATFE? I’m not against your innate rights to own such stuff for a T-virus outbreak but how ’bout just keeping it on the down-low?
Your lack of self awareness is staggering to behold.
Dude. If we comply or just let this happen it leaves the door open for something else to get whacked. Where is the line for you?
Not too clever. You just roll over and comply, and wait for your ticket to the rail car. Forget ye were our countryman.
Hey SOT, why don’t you mind your own business you coward. The other responses said it better.
Clever SOT,
I agree, bragging about your intentions to resist online is not a good strategy – but that doesn’t address the underlying issue. You wouldn’t put yourself or your family at risk over this issue. OK, for any given issue, everyone’s threshold of “time to go to the mattresses” is different. This obviously isn’t the issue, for you. OK, I get that. WHAT IS the point at which you would be ready to throw down?? Is there one?? Would it take a Ruby Ridge (with you as Randy Weaver)?
Of course, while I “will not comply” with this clearly unconstitional nonsense, it isn’t relevant, since I lost ALL my firearms (including my braced “AR pistol” in that tragic canoeing accident. But if I still had them, I “would not comply”. Just sayin’, is all.
Sometimes I wish the ATF would spend a bit more time focusing on the first two letters of their acronym: Alcohol & Tobacco. Both of those kill far more Americans than Firearms.
Time to review this crap and dust off my comment from December, guessing that most of my comment is still valid.
Pretty cute for an agency that exists soley to enforce SUBJECTIVE rules to be using the word OBJECTIVE so liberally. Almost as if they’re over-compensating to obfuscate the lie.
I suppose any ATF agents “objective” whim will override any designers or engineers statement of a braces intent or design. Otherwise there’s be no point in this rule change.
Sure is a lot of “I’ll know it when I see it” and “because I said so” coming out of this administration.
sounds like the definition of pornography…back when it was illegal…remember?
The proposed rule is here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
There is a two page form 4999 with a points system.
Seriously, who TF came up with this? It looks like a belated April Fools Joke.
I mean think about it, at any criminal trial they have to submit this to a jury. WTF. LMAO.
Read the .pdf at the link, above. Scroll down and see how the ATF would utilize the two page form 4999 points system. Basically, the “as evaluated” SB-Mini reviewed was deemed “a pistol” while the SBA3 and Blade were deemed SBRs.
Of course, these examples were on an “as evaluated” basis which also include “peripheral accessories,” such as sights, grips, weight of firearm, if there is a scope, hand-stops, etc.
Even if the firearm is deemed to be a pistol under section II of the form, other “characteristics” (i.e. do you have a handstop installed?) could transform it into an SBR.
This is a disaster of a proposed rule.
“This is a disaster of a proposed rule.”
I think that’s the intended *point*.
Like California firearm ‘regulations’ designed to intimidate citizens even *thinking* about gun ownership, this proposed ‘shit show’ is designed to be selectively enforced “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime” Beria-style…
Every firearm must be reviewed as an individual, with every post-purchase accessory potentially changing the “legality” according to the waco kids. Eff that. And eff their proposals. Totally unconstitutional.
confusion reigns and clarity is in short supply…just stash the damn thing like the bump-stock guys and hope for better days….
“Law enforcement, health care providers, community leaders, victim advocates, and others may not only help shape the appropriate scope of a state’s particular legislation…” – no input from gun owners or pro-rights organizations needed.
Thank every dead relative of yours for voting in the sniffer in chief.
Many people are saying that Joe BiDeN is a better President than me. But, then again, I am an incompetent, immoral dotard, believe me!
Yes, pathetic autistic reject troll, you are ” an incompetent, immoral dotard”, we believe you! 😉
No, only YOU, little boy.
Very *little* ‘boy’… *snicker* 😉
Sorry Geoff but I have to address one of your trolls.
One of you bastards snuck into my neighbors yard and screwed their dog.
I was supposed to be watching the dog but went and got the mail.
Which one of you did it? That was a show dog.
Dear TTAG “Moderators”,
WTAF????? You deleted my (much milder) response, but allowed this nameless, drive-by troll to post THIS:
“Sorry Geoff but I have to address one of your trolls.
One of you bastards snuck into my neighbors yard and screwed their dog.
I was supposed to be watching the dog but went and got the mail.
Which one of you did it? That was a show dog.”
Whatever. Y’all have pulled this EXACT crap, before. Since your “standards” for “moderating” are clearly pulled out of your backside, I’ll continue to post what I want. If you want to delete it, feel free . . . but a rational person would be embarrassed to enforce your “standards”.
Have a nice day. I’m sure you’ll continue to do irrational “moderation”. Have fun with that.
Maybe the “nameless, drive-by troll” is actually addressing trolling.
Or maybe they are just much funnier then you.
You did repeat their post verbatim.
Take a Xanax.
Hey, nameless, brainless troll!!
I wish I could say it’s nice to see you back – but it’s not. As ALWAYS, with you, you literally have NOTHING substantive to say . . . and your ad hominem “witticisms” aren’t (you always thought you were a wit, and you’re half right).
Please FOAD.
Nobody says Biden is better at anything besides soiling his pants or violating little girls.
Notice how Section 4 instructs adding the victim’s name to the NICS database, but doesn’t mention ever removing it when an order expires or is dismissed.
Hey, Snake Eyes,
You voted for this s***. Happy??? Isn’t that Gropey Joe Biden, the Senile Serial Child Molester, a great president???
Please, if you’re going to support incompetent, senile, stupid (and Gropey Joe was stupid BEFORE he was senile), then be a man and OWN the consequences of your electoral stupidity, eh??? Or continue to personify the Einsteinian definition of insanity; it seems to suit you.
I voted against the greater evil, as in every general election since the 1990s.
If you think our gun rights were safe under Trump, you’re a poor student of history.
Dementia in Chief was the lesser of evils? Wow, just wow.
ATF is a puppet dancing on a string of whatever administration is in power…a year ago they were talking about eliminating the restrictions on SBR’s entirely…now they’re back to the same song and dance they’ve pulled in the past while jerking everyone around…no wonder everyone regards them as a bunch of assholes…..
More ‘infringements’.
Bump stocks and binary triggers should have never been allowed. Incomplete lowers should never have been allowed. SBR’s should have been allowed from the beginning but they weren’t, and then came the ridiculous rulings that somehow made braces legal. We all know how ridiculous the classification of braces is. So the real fight is that SBR’s should not be classified under the NFA. To argue that braces are okay as opposed to stocks is dumb, dumb as the ATF allowing that to fly when they did. Anybody with a brain knew that and also knew one day they would wake up and have to change their rulings in either braces or SBR’s. Fighting for braces is retarded, get real and fight for removing SBR’s from the NFA list.
Danja,
“Bump stocks and binary triggers should have never been allowed. Incomplete lowers should never have been allowed.”
Rather than assume insanity on your part, let me seek clarification: Regardless of your opinion of either bump stocks, binary triggers, or incomplete lowers (and what, exactly, is your problem with incomplete lowers??), what is your justification for saying they “should never have been allowed”??
Because, frankly, that sounds stupid.
Read through their draft rules change then go down to their new score sheets. They will construe every single AR pistol out their as meeting the requirements to be regulated as a SBR.
I will be submitting my comment but will focus on the lack of proof that these are more dangerous weapons, more concealable and used by criminals. The second part of my comments will stay focused on the rules turning a large portion of the populace into instant felons.
“They will construe every single AR pistol out their as meeting the requirements to be regulated as a SBR.”
Then why did they say that the first example was not a SBR?
Only real difference is the first is not adjustable and has less material on the rear of the support.
Majority of what has been sold is more akin to the SB3 braces as seen in the second example. The kicker is this, once they get some rules out there in regards to AR pistols, they will keep going. Soon the first example will then be assigned some new variation of rules.
Do not give them an inch as they have proven they will just keep pushing.
I didn’t say I agreed with the rules. The ATF, FBI,CIA, DEA, and DHS should all be sent to the scrap heap of history. The military should be guarding our borders and returning any and all immigrants to someplace other than here.
But the rules are not the blank page some are trying to paint them as.
Texas: HB 2622: Second Amendment Sanctuary
Earlier today, the Senate passed the exact same version already passed by the House. The bill now goes to the Governor, who has championed this legislation. If signed, it will go into effect on September 1, 2021.
The bill keeps Texas personnel and resources from being used to enforce Federal gun-related laws enacted after January 19, 2021 that are not in Texas law.
If an entity or agency violates the provision and tries to help enforce future Federal gun laws, that entity will be denied state funding.
Note: The bill is NOT designed protect against existing Federal infringements or against any state-level infringements, and it does NOT stop the Federal government from enforcing their own laws.
So, does “enacted” include new rules like this ban on pistol braces? Who determines what falls under their 2a Sancturary law? Does the TX Governor? Is it up to the individual department?
Hope they planned this out cause it looks like they are gonna need it!
Only thing it means is Texas state and local agencies cannot be used to enforce Federal law. The Feds cannot force any state or local government to enforce Federal law. This is just the same as the state and local laws on pot and invading 3rd worlders. The Feds can still arrest someone for violations of Federal law, but they cannot force the local PD to spend any resources in enforcing state law.
YYYYAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! IDGAS what the DOJ/ATF/Fat broad in the back room, or anyone else says. FK ’em all!! The young the short and the tall.
Wouldn’t these firearms be more concealable without the “pistol brace”?
so i asked this question the day they announced they were going to do this:
“what if what your pistol brace is attached to is longer than 26 inches – making it no longer a pistol but rather a firearm”
i thought that surely they wouldnt miss that and then i read the form 4999 and saw this:
“SECTION I – PREREQUISITES [Suitability of “Brace” use]
1. The weapon must weigh at least 64 ounces. * Weighed with magazine . unloaded / accessories removed
2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches. * Length measured with all non-operational accessories removed
Weapon must meet both Prerequisites In order to proceed to Section II.”
i didnt read the entire document but does this mean if you have a 10.5 pistol and pin and weld a 2.5 inch muzzle device on it making it 26.5 inches long you can put whatever brace and whatever optic and whatever forward grip you want on it
or am i missing something
I’d say that’s not an operational device. Probably if it ain’t factory its add on take it off.
anybody else notice that in section 3:
“Presence of Rifle-type Back-up / Flip-up Sights / Or no sights” = 1 point
huh…
The idea here is that iron sights are hard to use when you’re using a brace as “intended”. This is as opposed to, say, a reflex sight, which is easy, and an LPVO or magnifier, which is impossible. It makes sense within the ATF’s premise (which I am not defending).
yeah but they way im reading it theyre basically gigging you “for having them” or “not having them”
it doesnt make any to sense to me
human nature is if someone is going to be guilty either way “for robbing the bank” or “not robbing the bank” theyll probably just go ahead and rob the bank…
What if the ATF created some new law and no one paid any attention?
Gee I just bought two raffle tickets for an SBR with a pistol brace.
I think the law is if you win it their okay to keep. Pretty sure that’s how that law goes.
OK, we all know that the clear intention of this rule is to pretend to “objective” criteria, while maintaining as much wiggle room as possible. What piques my interest is that the OBVIOUS response to this nonsense is to . . . simply ignore the ATF, remove the brace from your SBR, and put on a “real” AR sliding stock. It is literally the same, exact legal liability, and you get a more functional product, so . . . what is my incentive to comply with this STUPID rule?????
But, then, compliance isn’t really the point, is it?? The ATF WANTS to create more “criminals”. Admitting in advance that the writing is execrably horrible, Ayn Rand got it right in “Atlas Shrugged”: “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
If I still had any guns, including AR pistols with now-illegal braces, I wouldn’t comply. Unfortunately, there was that tragic boating accident, so it isn’t an issue for me.
How in blazes does adding a stock make it more concealable and more powerful?!?
That’s as dumb a theory as saying mounting a Glock to a mounted post on a vehicle makes it an anti tank machine gun.
Who’s running this circus! (Chipman soon, i know…….)
So ditch the brace and use a sling.
I hope all the people that commented here also took the time to comment on the actual proposed ruling….