TexasCHLforum.com

The ATF told The Reload on Friday it has received just over a quarter million applications to register pistol-brace-equipped firearms.

<——SNIP——>

That number represents just a fraction of the braced guns believed to have been sold in the decade since the ATF first classified a version as outside the scope of the NFA. In the impact assessment for the rule, the ATF estimated that three to seven million devices exist. However, the Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million.

That puts the registration rate for pistol-brace-equipped guns at between 0.6 percent and eight percent.

Rafe wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 6:09 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:11 pm The new rules are due to be posted to the Federal Register tomorrow 1/31/2023. The 120 day entrapment...oops...120 amnesty period starts tomorrow.

Here's where to find the actual document in the federal register: https://www.federalregister.gov/public- ... ing-braces.

It was filed at 08:45 this morning Eastern Time, and will release automatically tomorrow...all 291 pages of it.

For TAM's prior question/dilemma, it seems that the SCOTUS decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms means that the brace can be removed and not have to be destroyed if the owner also has a 16-inch barrel or longer upper to which the brace could be attached, or already has a registered NFA SBR lower. We shall see...

Bolton Strid wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 11:30 am Will miss the entertaining hysterics here as well as other places across the internet after this dumpster fire of a so-called regulation gets slapped down. Reads like it was written by a freshman college intern. The bottom line is there is NO WAY to comply with it. There is no path to compliance - it runs afoul of other laws (ie tax code) and is tangled up in conflicts and operational cross-purposes. Most horrible junk I've read in a while. Talking to anyone at the ATF is pointless - talk to 10 different people, get 10 different answers, which are actually non-answers since they simply try to refer you to a boss up the chain of command, who never calls back. They're not being dodgy or belligerent, they just don't know anything.

An aspect I haven't seen mentioned anywhere are the LEOs who have bought 10 inch barreled ARs with a brace setup. They're lighter, handier to manipulate inside a vehicle and have sufficient firepower for the distances they're likely to engage at. The reduced velocity and range of those actually aids in public safety surrounding a conflict scene. Those folk are gonna find themselves in the same sort of pickle as the public. Hope they're being sufficiently vocal about it themselves.

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:47 am Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulatio ... ing-braces

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

One of the requirements of individual “Responsible Persons” registration is electronic fingerprint cards. Where is the best place to get these done?

I have an AR pistol that I need to reluctantly register as a SBR.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:46 am My question is this: will having a pistol brace in one's spare parts bin be considered "constructive possession" of an SBR, or will one have to either destroy it or turn it in as the F-troop decreed with bump stocks?

My sense is that, eventually, a lot of this ATF nonsense is going to get slapped down in the courts per the West Virginia v. EPA SCOTUS ruling. That’s not to say that Congress won’t eventually act to "correct" that ruling by legislatively assigning additional authority to ATF not already contained in the NFA. But until/unless that happens, my sense is that the long term outlook for ATF overreach isn’t favorable to ATF. I don’t want to destroy or have to bury a perfectly usable pistol brace, for which I paid about $125, if I can be reasonably certain that ATF isn’t going to go door to door to confront pistol brace owners.

jason812 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:11 pm

gamboolman wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:34 pm I need help please.

I am glad, and want to submit comments opposing the Proposed Legislation on Pistol Braces.

Having said that, I know that I am not knowledgeable enough to write a succinct and effective comment.

Any help or examples would be most appreciated.

Thanks, gamboolman.....

Here is the link to commenting in the Federal Register:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... en-comment

I usually just quote the 2nd Amendment because I'm not that eloquent.

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:51 am ATF has gone rogue. We need to repeal the NFA, and strip them of any authority or the power to exercise that authority

The BATFE needs to be the BATE, time to fix it!

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:18 am I believe that the ruling must be intended to be used against manufacturers. As you point out, it will be tricky for brace manufacturers since it is nothing until it is added to a firearm, but the makers of the pistols themselves can be prosecuted. The ATF also has a long history of prosecuting people for making things "intended" to produce illegal weapons. If I understood the case correctly, the maker I referred to was selling a "coat hook", that is he sold a piece of metal he claimed was a small coat hook for hanging things on the wall. The ATF claimed that was a subterfuge and it was really intended to produce a fully automatic weapon. They raided the maker and took his files and did raid some of his customers homes to find the parts. I could be wrong on what he was selling and how because I generally do not follow that market area (I want a fully automatic rifle or three but not so badly that I would try to make it, even with a bump stock).

If you agree that there are too many AR pistols with braces for the ATF to try to arrest the owners now, then you have to ask yourself why they would make the rule. One of the basic principles of legislation is (or should be) never pass a law (or rule) that you do not intend to enforce or cannot enforce. It breeds contempt for the law in general and creates more problems than it is worth. Then you have to ask yourself who they intend to enforce this ruling on. Manufacturers is all I can come up with.

My problem with your feeling that it is okay to interpret the law is that it belongs to the courts to make that interpretation. That was the decision in Marbury v. Madison and I believe it is correct. But the courts have also adopted a policy of deference to agency interpretations, which makes the interpretations law making. Laws should be written clearly enough that the citizen can understand it without needing an agency to interpret it. Do you understand what a handgun is, as defined by the law? A Short-barrelled rifle? A machine gun? I understand the definition in the law very well and see no possible need for an interpretation by ATF. This is how you get stupid definitions like a bump stock is a machine gun. The law defines a machine gun as a weapon capable of firing twice with one pull of the trigger. How can a bumpstock fire at all to be classified as a weapon?

I said that the entire CFR is unconstitutional and that may be an overstatement. Agencies can and should adopt some rules, such as how to apply for a license for something. Procedural rules on how to work with the agency are fine as long as there is no penalty attached to a mistake. If I do not fill out the forms correctly and in the right order, my license gets denied but I cannot be fined or jailed. When a rule is adopted where you can be arrested for violating it, the agency is making law and not rules, in my opinion.