ATF Released New Proposed Pistol Brace Rules

[Charles L. Cotton]

When responding to the proposed rule, DO NOT use anyone's proposed response. The BATFE must respond to every different point raised, but not every comment. A thousand identical comments, or substantially the same point, requires only one response. A thousand different points require a thousand formal responses by the BATFE. It will be months before there is a rule in place that can be evaluated for a lawsuit.

Chas.

[LDB415]

It seems to be nothing but a blatant violation of the Second Amendment created to make millions of honest citizens into criminals and to allow confiscation, the first of what will become many confiscations, of legal weapons. It brings to mind the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

[srothstein]

Having said that, I think this action was brought on by people deliberately trying to get around the law on SBRs by claiming it is a pistol. This ruling is, IMO, trying to stop that and still allow real AR pistols with braces. The ATF is trying to appease the leftists while still allowing the legal pistols with braces.

I know you are not naive but I think you are too kind. There is no way they have any benevolent thought towards any firearms unless its the ones possessed by the government.

You are correct that they have no benevolent thought towards any citizen owning any firearms. I certainly cannot argue that point. But they are very good strategists/tacticians and they know they could not get anything through the courts if they banned all braced pistols, so they are trying to straddle the line as well as they can. I should have worded my first statement on this a little better.

[LSUTiger]

Did this ridiculous rules ever become the rule?

[PriestTheRunner]

Did this ridiculous rules ever become the rule?

Also curious as this seems to have died. Did our congress-people actually cause enough fuss to kill it? I recall them calling the upper ATF to testify.

[K.Mooneyham]

Did this ridiculous rules ever become the rule?

Also curious as this seems to have died. Did our congress-people actually cause enough fuss to kill it? I recall them calling the upper ATF to testify.

I am curious, too. I figured it went through, but how would someone know for sure?

[LSUTiger]

[PriestTheRunner]

[video]

Useful, Thank you.

So basically they are expected to ignore all the comments and do what they want anyway... I hope the Texas silencer lawsuit makes some progress before the April 2023 estimate in that video, we have some institutions that seriously need to be put in check.

[LSUTiger]

[carlson1]

[LDB415]

Is there a Reader's Digest version that doesn't require watching videos?

[carlson1]

Is there a Reader's Digest version that doesn't require watching videos?

Go back and read the thread. It is all there. Especially pay attention to Mr. Cotton’s lost and suggesting. If we don’t start calling and writing our representatives you will either wake up as a felon or a pawn in their game.

[carlson1]

I only have one pistol with a brace. I think the easiest thing for me to do is just remove the brace. I absolutely do not intend to join their “amnesty” plan. I was against the bump stock situation a few years back. We had so many saying, “well that not really important or I don’t have one and don’t see the need for one.” I said then that is was just the beginning of more infringement.

Not many people have enough sense to know what “shall not be infringed” even means.

[The Annoyed Man]

We have 2 registered SBR lowers on our trust, but both my son and I each also own a pistol brace lower, specifically for the purpose of being able to travel across state lines with a short-barreled upper. I’m not willing to register another SBR lower, amnesty or not, $200 tax or not. So I’ll be converting my pistol-braced lower back into a 16” carbine. I can’t speak for my son, although I suspect he’ll do the same.

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.

[parabelum]

I think more time & effort ought to be spent on locking up career criminals. Enormous overstep to make a legal ownership, illegal. Without oversight and absent of due process and away from the eye of the relevant State / jurisdiction.