ATF Released New Proposed Pistol Brace Rules

[Paladin]

ATF Released New Proposed Pistol Brace Rules

As expected its bad... but actually even worse than I imagined in that they are adding all kinds of weight/length requirements to the definition of a pistol. Evidently they propose to turn millions of pistols into SBR's with no legislative process.

Read the proposed rule here: link

[Rafe]

ATF Released New Proposed Pistol Brace Rules

As expected its bad... but actually even worse than I imagined in that they are adding all kinds of weight/length requirements to the definition of a pistol. Evidently they propose to turn millions of pistols into SBR's with no legislative process.

Read the proposed rule here: link

Important item for everyone to note:

This proposed rule is a separate action from the Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” published on December 18, 2020, and withdrawn on December 31, 2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were considered for this proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to that notice will be considered as part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this proposed rule.

[FastCarry]

“The ATF gives gun owners several choices.

The first choice is turning the guns into the ATF. The ATF says this choice would be at “no-cost” to gun owners. This move is gun confiscation.”

Hahahah

[Texas_Blaze]

Just carrying on the traditions of Trump. I mean who cares. People told me bumpstocks were stupid and we shouldn’t whine about the sacrifice to appease lefties. So let’s just say pistol braces are stupid and not worthy of fighting for these either. Must sacrifice to make the lefties happy.

[jason812]

Just carrying on the traditions of Trump. I mean who cares. People told me bumpstocks were stupid and we shouldn’t whine about the sacrifice to appease lefties. So let’s just say pistol braces are stupid and not worthy of fighting for these either. Must sacrifice to make the lefties happy.

Yep. We must sacrifice our pistol braces to save all our rifles. Run away to run away another day.

[anygunanywhere]

Just carrying on the traditions of Trump. I mean who cares. People told me bumpstocks were stupid and we shouldn’t whine about the sacrifice to appease lefties. So let’s just say pistol braces are stupid and not worthy of fighting for these either. Must sacrifice to make the lefties happy.

Nice sarcasm.

[anygunanywhere]

Just carrying on the traditions of Trump. I mean who cares. People told me bumpstocks were stupid and we shouldn’t whine about the sacrifice to appease lefties. So let’s just say pistol braces are stupid and not worthy of fighting for these either. Must sacrifice to make the lefties happy.

Yep. We must sacrifice our pistol braces to save all our rifles. Run away to run away another day.

Nice sarcasm.

[anygunanywhere]

The GOP will save us.

[Syntyr]

This is some weapons grade stupidity here.

Okay... so this is a two part test. If you score a 4 or higher on either step then boom you have an SBR and are a felon! You have to add up the points for each and every category that fits your weapon. eg if you have a split type stabilizer and it folds that's 3+1 = SBR.

There is a lot here to get wrong. You think you have a 3 point brace but forget that you have a hand stop, not a vertical foregrip just a hand stop. That's 2 points plus 3 and you have an SBR. The weapon weighs more than 120 ounces - automatic SBR! Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire - you guessed it SBR!

PREREQUISITES
1. The weapon must weigh at least 64 ounces. * Weighed with the 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

If you meet both of these prerequisites you proceed to the SBR test Part 1.

PART 1 (Total up points and if you get 0-3 then proceed to PART 2. If you score 4 or more congrats you own an SBR!)
ACCESSORY DESIGN
Not based on a known shoulder stock design 0
Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s) 1
Based on a know n shoulder stock design 2
REAR SURFACE AREA
The device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device 0
Minimized Rear Surface lacking features to discourage shouldering I
Rear Surface useful for shouldering the firearm 2
Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering 3
ADJUST ABILITY
Non-adjustable, fixed design 0
Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering 2
STABILIZING SUPPORT
Counterbalance Design - Non-Folding 0
Counterbalance Design that Folds creating Rear Contact Surface 1
OR:
"Fin- type" design WITH Arm Strap 0
"Fin- type" design WITHOUT Arm Strap 2
OR:
"Cuff-type" design that FULLY wraps around arm 0
"Cuff-type" design that PARTIALLY wraps around arm I
"Cuff-type" design that FAILS to wrap around arm 2
"Split-stock" configuration not designed to wrap around shooter's arm 3

PART 2 (Total up points and if you score 4 or more congrats you have an SBR!)
LENGTH OF PULL -w/Accessory in Rearmost "Locked Position" * Measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the
Less than 10-1/2 Inches 0 shoulder device / "stabilizing brace"
10-1/2 but under 11-1/2 Inches I
11-1/2 but under 12-1/2 Inches 2
12-1/2 but under 13-1/2 Inches 3
13-1/2 Inches and Over 4
ATTACHMENT METHOD
Standard AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube (6-6-1/2 Inches) 0
AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube with Adjustment Notches (KAK-type) I
Adjustable Rifle Buffer Tube 1
Adjustable PDW-type guide rails I
Extended AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube 2
Inclusion of Folding Adapter extending length of pull 2
Use of"Spacers" to extend the length of pull 2
Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by "stabilizing brace" 3
Attachment method creates an unusable aim-point (slant) 3
"STABILIZING BRACE" MODIFICATIONS I CONFIGURATION
"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap too short to function 2
"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap made out of elastic material 2
"Fin-type" lacking an arm strap 2
"Cuff-type" design with strap REMOVED 4
"Brace" accessory modified for shouldering 4
Modified Shoulder Stock (originally a Shoulder Stock) 4
PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES
Presence of a Hand Stop 2
Presence of a Secondary Grip (indicating two-handed fire) 4
Presence of Rifle-type Back-up / Flip-up Sights / Or no sights I
Presence of Reflex Sight with FTS Magnifier w/ Limited Eye-Relief 2
Presence of a Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire 4
Presence of a bipod/monopod 2
A weapon as configured weighing more than 120 ounces 4 * Weighed with the magazine - unloaded

[Papa_Tiger]

This is some weapons grade stupidity here.

Okay... so this is a two part test. If you score a 4 or higher on either step then boom you have an SBR and are a felon! You have to add up the points for each and every category that fits your weapon. eg if you have a split type stabilizer and it folds that's 3+1 = SBR.

There is a lot here to get wrong. You think you have a 3 point brace but forget that you have a hand stop, not a vertical foregrip just a hand stop. That's 2 points plus 3 and you have an SBR. The weapon weighs more than 120 ounces - automatic SBR! Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire - you guessed it SBR!

PREREQUISITES
1. The weapon must weigh at least 64 ounces. * Weighed with the 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

If you meet both of these prerequisites you proceed to the SBR test Part 1.

PART 1 (Total up points and if you get 0-3 then proceed to PART 2. If you score 4 or more congrats you own an SBR!)
ACCESSORY DESIGN
Not based on a known shoulder stock design 0
Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s) 1
Based on a know n shoulder stock design 2
REAR SURFACE AREA
The device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device 0
Minimized Rear Surface lacking features to discourage shouldering I
Rear Surface useful for shouldering the firearm 2
Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering 3
ADJUST ABILITY
Non-adjustable, fixed design 0
Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering 2
STABILIZING SUPPORT
Counterbalance Design - Non-Folding 0
Counterbalance Design that Folds creating Rear Contact Surface 1
OR:
"Fin- type" design WITH Arm Strap 0
"Fin- type" design WITHOUT Arm Strap 2
OR:
"Cuff-type" design that FULLY wraps around arm 0
"Cuff-type" design that PARTIALLY wraps around arm I
"Cuff-type" design that FAILS to wrap around arm 2
"Split-stock" configuration not designed to wrap around shooter's arm 3

PART 2 (Total up points and if you score 4 or more congrats you have an SBR!)
LENGTH OF PULL -w/Accessory in Rearmost "Locked Position" * Measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the
Less than 10-1/2 Inches 0 shoulder device / "stabilizing brace"
10-1/2 but under 11-1/2 Inches I
11-1/2 but under 12-1/2 Inches 2
12-1/2 but under 13-1/2 Inches 3
13-1/2 Inches and Over 4
ATTACHMENT METHOD
Standard AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube (6-6-1/2 Inches) 0
AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube with Adjustment Notches (KAK-type) I
Adjustable Rifle Buffer Tube 1
Adjustable PDW-type guide rails I
Extended AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube 2
Inclusion of Folding Adapter extending length of pull 2
Use of"Spacers" to extend the length of pull 2
Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by "stabilizing brace" 3
Attachment method creates an unusable aim-point (slant) 3
"STABILIZING BRACE" MODIFICATIONS I CONFIGURATION
"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap too short to function 2
"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap made out of elastic material 2
"Fin-type" lacking an arm strap 2
"Cuff-type" design with strap REMOVED 4
"Brace" accessory modified for shouldering 4
Modified Shoulder Stock (originally a Shoulder Stock) 4
PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES
Presence of a Hand Stop 2
Presence of a Secondary Grip (indicating two-handed fire) 4
Presence of Rifle-type Back-up / Flip-up Sights / Or no sights I
Presence of Reflex Sight with FTS Magnifier w/ Limited Eye-Relief 2
Presence of a Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire 4
Presence of a bipod/monopod 2
A weapon as configured weighing more than 120 ounces 4 * Weighed with the magazine - unloaded

That is ridiculous.

Lets see. I bought a nice little [url=https://ruger.com/products/22Charger/sp ... l}plinking pistol[/url] to help the kids with their fundamentals.

It weighs less than 64 oz with the magazine and no other accessories - per my scale came in at 55.73.

Add 9 oz and then we have to go through these tests.

Assuming I score 0 for the first half, if I add a red dot and a bipod (bipod comes with the kit I purchased) I now have an SBR?

Security theater at its finest.

[Syntyr]

That is ridiculous.

Lets see. I bought a nice little [url=https://ruger.com/products/22Charger/sp ... l}plinking pistol[/url] to help the kids with their fundamentals.

It weighs less than 64 oz with the magazine and no other accessories - per my scale came in at 55.73.

Add 9 oz and then we have to go through these tests.

Assuming I score 0 for the first half, if I add a red dot and a bipod (bipod comes with the kit I purchased) I now have an SBR?

Security theater at its finest.

Well, you know that pistol is "especially dangerous and unusual!"

[K.Mooneyham]

I'm going to call it the way I see it. If enough of you want to sit out elections because SOME Republicans don't care about firearms as much as you want them to care, well, get ready to have Democrats in those offices, and don't complain about all the other stuff the Democrats do that you don't like. OR, you can try voting in the Republican PRIMARIES so that you can help put someone in the general election that might care more about what you want them to care about. And, for the record, I despise those types of gun-control laws and regulations because I know that they aren't just useless, but DESIGNED to incrementally disarm Americans. I also thought that Trump's bumpstock ban was a big mistake, but there was no way I was sitting it out, or voting for Joe Biden. At least I can say, every time Biden does something stupid or dangerous, "don't blame me, I voted for Trump". And I've worked on aircraft for over 30 years, I've had a lot of salty language directed at me, so that won't change my mind, either.

[srothstein]

I want to first point out that I think all of the NFA of 1934, GCA of 68, and parts (and maybe all) of FOPA of 86 are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. I think the very concept of any federal agency making rules to clarify the law is unconstitutional (Congress is the exclusive legislative body and the CFR violates the concept of separation of powers).

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.

Wait until the really read the law and try to apply it. The actual law says a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand. I am just curious, but doe anyone around here have a hand that has two index fingers on it? But I see pistols with trigger guards that have a front edge that is serrated and has a reverse curve, so that it is designed for an index finger to wrap around and stabilize the gun better. And we are taught to shoot them that way, in either an Isoceles or Weaver stance (or a modified combination thereof. Remember when we carried revolvers with smooth trigger guards and were taught to fire them by holding it straight out in one arm with the other arm on our hip to help counterbalance us?

I will write comments opposing this proposal and I will support the NRA and TSRA as they fight it. I am seriously considering joining GOA and JFPO to assist them in fighting things like this too. But I do want to point out that we brought this on ourselves too.

[K.Mooneyham]

I want to first point out that I think all of the NFA of 1934, GCA of 68, and parts (and maybe all) of FOPA of 86 are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. I think the very concept of any federal agency making rules to clarify the law is unconstitutional (Congress is the exclusive legislative body and the CFR violates the concept of separation of powers).

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.

Wait until the really read the law and try to apply it. The actual law says a handgun is designed to be fired with one hand. I am just curious, but doe anyone around here have a hand that has two index fingers on it? But I see pistols with trigger guards that have a front edge that is serrated and has a reverse curve, so that it is designed for an index finger to wrap around and stabilize the gun better. And we are taught to shoot them that way, in either an Isoceles or Weaver stance (or a modified combination thereof. Remember when we carried revolvers with smooth trigger guards and were taught to fire them by holding it straight out in one arm with the other arm on our hip to help counterbalance us?

I will write comments opposing this proposal and I will support the NRA and TSRA as they fight it. I am seriously considering joining GOA and JFPO to assist them in fighting things like this too. But I do want to point out that we brought this on ourselves too.

Mr. Rothstein, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, 100%, and I won't argue against the second part, either. However, I'm sure you know that no law is any better than its enforcement. So what I am curious about is this: how many braced-type AR pistols do you think are out there right now? It has to be a pretty big number, six figures perhaps. Additionally, are law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas going to aid the BATFE in any significant manner to locate and arrest people who own AR pistols which might run afoul of those proposed rules? I understand the scenarios of "you get pulled over for a traffic stop on the way to the range and your now-illegal AR pistol gets you arrested", etc. But still, how practical is it for the BATFE to rely on such a strategy? And, if the number of AR pistols is a six-figure number, can they really jail even a significant proportion of those? All that said, what I'm getting at is that over-reach by a Federal agency might have more than one meaning, in this case, biting off more than they can chew. (Disclaimer, I don't own one of those, never could afford it compared to other things I wanted to purchase.)

[srothstein]

Mr. Rothstein, I agree with the first part of what you wrote, 100%, and I won't argue against the second part, either. However, I'm sure you know that no law is any better than its enforcement. So what I am curious about is this: how many braced-type AR pistols do you think are out there right now? It has to be a pretty big number, six figures perhaps. Additionally, are law enforcement agencies in the State of Texas going to aid the BATFE in any significant manner to locate and arrest people who own AR pistols which might run afoul of those proposed rules? I understand the scenarios of "you get pulled over for a traffic stop on the way to the range and your now-illegal AR pistol gets you arrested", etc. But still, how practical is it for the BATFE to rely on such a strategy? And, if the number of AR pistols is a six-figure number, can they really jail even a significant proportion of those? All that said, what I'm getting at is that over-reach by a Federal agency might have more than one meaning, in this case, biting off more than they can chew. (Disclaimer, I don't own one of those, never could afford it compared to other things I wanted to purchase.)

Mr. Mooneyham, I believe you are correct that this law is effectively unenforceable on the vast number of braced AR pistols that exist right now. The ATF can only enforce that on people idiotic enough (I tried to think of a polite way to say that but I think that about describes it) to send their pistol to the ATF or local police for an evaluation. There is simply no way to enforce this against existing firearms now. The real question is if there is any way to enforce it against future firearms. I think ATF will be monitoring the market place and will go after the manufacturers of braces they feel violate their rules. Then they will get the list of the customers and will send them letters demanding they turn in the weapon (much like they just did with one company and its "autosear". I think the average gun owner is fairly safe from the ATF on this and it will primarily hurt manufacturers and some of them will end up in jail. But that will dry up the supply for future gun owners who want a braced pistol.

I think this proposal almost makes our legislature seem prescient. They did pass the bill, and I believe the governor will sign it, that stops state licensed peace officers from enforcing these laws or helping federal agents do so. I had not expected to see a benefit from it that quickly.