ATF New Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"

[DoubleMag]

How to Effectively Comment on Proposed ATF Regulations
1. Focus Focus Focus
One of the easiest things for us

...

Thanks for post#25 STAY FOCUSED GENTS & GEMS ! ! !

This proposed rule and the MORE onerous ''ghost gun'' proposal are nearing the response counts that PREVIOUSLY forced a withdrawal of the rule!

Have YOU commented yet? If not, just think about it...YOURS just may be the one that stops the proposal flatly!

THRoaders, unite & write ! ! ! Even the shortest letter ''I am opposed'' is working! Strength in numbers SAVES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! ! !

 

[F-111 John]

My thoughts are that this comment opportunity isn't the forum to try to argue the point that BATF can't restrict braces that meet their definition of stocks--the law certainly gives them the power to regulate handguns with stocks whether we like it or not.

Rather, this is the place to provide input regarding the definition that will officially be used to differentiate between braces and stocks until Congress passes legislation to differentiate the two (assuming they ever do).

To that end, I have written the following draft comment. I post it in its entirety here, but it is so long that I may cut out all of the line-by-line analysis and just submit the first six and last three paragraphs, or a variation thereof.

***************************************

This commenter will focus on the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, “FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES commonly referred to as ‘STABILIZING BRACES’”

It is obvious that this worksheet is intended to mimic the worksheet used by the ATF titled FACTORING CRITERIA FOR WEAPONS, ATF Form 4590, which assesses a handgun submitted to the ATF for potential importation into the United States by examining the firearm and awarding “points” for certain features, or lack of features. Only if the proposed handgun meets or exceeds a stated “qualifying score” is the handgun then considered eligible for importation.

In a similar manner, the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 examines a firearm with attached stabilizing brace and assigns various penalty points to selected features and attributes of the weapon. If the accumulated points exceed a given score, then it will be determined that the firearm being examined is a not a pistol, but rather a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under the definition of the National Firearms Act (NFA.)

If the intent of this proposed form were for use in determining if a sample firearm submitted by a manufacturer or importer would be lawful to sell or import into the United States as a pistol with stabilizing brace, this commenter would have no objections to the ATF’s proposed Worksheet 4999. In that context, the ATF would either approve or disapprove of the submitted weapon, and if not approved the manufacturer or importer could then either object to the scoring and negotiate with the ATF, or else make modifications to the design to bring the firearm into compliance with the ATF scoring criteria. In either case, the manufacturer or importer would at no time be under criminal penalty for achieving a failing score on the Worksheet. They would simply be unable to sell or import the failing firearm design.

However, this is not the use ATF has proposed for Worksheet 4999. Instead, the ATF is proposing to use this Worksheet to attempt to ascertain the intent of an individual end user of a pistol with stabilizing brace and determine whether the user is in violation of the National Firearms Act against possessing a short-barreled rifle without the requisite mandatory Tax Stamp, which is a Federal felony offense.

It is the opinion of this commenter that such a convoluted and subjectively scored “worksheet” is not the proper way to attempt to ascertain intent on the part of an individual user and subject the person to possible felonious legal jeopardy. Instead, an individual user needs to be apprised of a very clear set of criteria that would be presumptive violations of the NFA SBR laws, in an easy-to-understand, item-by-item “GO/NO GO” manner.

This commenter will examine each section of the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 individually, and comment on its suitability towards the goal of a simplified GO/NO GO criteria in determining the intent of the user.

SECTION I – PREREQUISITES

The ATF proposes a minimum weight of 64 ounces and a minimum length of 12 inches for a pistol to “qualify” as a candidate for a Pistol Stabilizing Brace. There is no statutory definition of a pistol that states a minimum weight or length of a pistol, other than for importation purposes, therefore there is no authority granted to the ATF to make this determination. Further, setting a minimum weight or length for a pistol to “qualify” as a candidate for a pistol stabilizing brace does not take into account any physical disabilities or limitations of any individual shooter. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO MINIMUM WEIGHT OR LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLITY OF A PISTOL TO HAVE A STABILIZING BRACE ATTACHED.

The ATF also proposes that a pistol cannot exceed 26 inches in length in order to remain an eligible candidate for a stabilizing brace. There is no statutory definition of a pistol that states a maximum length that a pistol cannot exceed, therefore there is no authority granted to the ATF to set such a maximum allowable length. This commenter OBJECTS TO MAXIMUM LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLITY OF A PISTOL TO HAVE A STABILIZING BRACE ATTACHED.

SECTION II – Accessory Characteristics

ACCESSORY DESIGN: The ATF proposes that the cosmetic design of the stabilizing brace somehow affects the utility of the brace for its intended use to stabilize the firearm during one handed firing. There is no evidence that the inclusion of sling attachment points, adjustment levers, or “hardened surfaces” detract from a stabilizing brace’s ability to function as intended. Indeed, adjustability makes it easier for the brace to be custom fit to each individual user, and should be considered an asset, not a detraction, from the utility of the stabilizing brace. Further, the ATF does not define what specific criteria constitutes a stabilizing brace to be considered “based on a known shoulder stock design.” Is the outline alone enough to be considered “based on a known shoulder stock design?” It is unclear. Therefore this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ANY ACCESSORY DESIGN CRITERIA AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

REAR SURFACE AREA: The ATF attempts to score a stabilizing brace based on the amount of rear surface area the brace possesses, with a sliding point scale that increases with the amount of area at the rear of the brace, yet does not provide an objective measurement in square inches how much surface area would garner how many points. Without an objective figure for surface area, and a stated means of how to measure surface area, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING REAR SURFACE AREA AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

ADJUSTABILITY: The ATF attempts to score a stabilizing brace’s ability to be adjusted as a factor against it in its utility as a stabilizing brace. As previously stated, adjustability can increase a stabilizing brace’s utility, in as much as it allows the brace to be properly fitted to different shooters. Further, the ATF had already included “adjustment levers” as a scoring criteria in the previous section “ACCESSORY DESIGN,” so scoring adjustability a second time is a form of “double jeopardy.” Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ADJUSTABILITY AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

STABILIZING SUPPORT: The ATF proposes to score a stabilizing brace based on its design style, with three different styles listed.

The Counterbalance Design would be penalized if the “tailhook” folded upwards when not in use. The folding of the stabilizing tailhook is a requirement to make the pistol transportable and storable in a case. Therefore, the Counterbalance design should not be penalized for having a folding tailhook, and indeed all current designs on the market include this feature. Therefore, folding tailhooks should not be held against a particular design.

The Fin-type would be penalized if it did not have an attached strap. However, the ATF never stipulated in their previous Determination Letters that such stabilizing brace designs had to include an arm strap. The fin-type brace uses the shooter’s horizontal ‘torque’ on the pistol’s handgrip to drive the fin into the shooter’s forearm in order to provide the necessary stabilization. Therefore, the lack of an arm strap should not be held against this design.

The “Cuff-type” of stabilizing brace is perhaps the most popular style, and curiously also the one most scrutinized by the ATF. The ATF is very inconsistent in their logic in assigning “points” against designs in cuff-type braces that it rewards in other styles of braces. For example, if a cuff-type brace has flexible material that only wraps partially around a forearm, yet still has a strap that fully encircles the shooter’s forearm, it is penalized. However, if a fin-style stabilizing brace that also fails to fully encircle the shooter’s forearm has a strap to perform that function, it is “rewarded” with zero points. The absence or presence of a strap could be used as a judging criteria, however the amount of “wrap” around the forearm should not. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING STABILIZING SUPPORT BEYOND THE PRESENSE OR ABSENSE OF AN ATTACHING STRAP AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

SECTION III – Configuration of Weapon

LENGTH OF PULL – w/Accessory in Rear most “Locked Position”: The ATF proposes that penalty points be awarded based on a sliding scale of the “length of pull” of the pistol from the rear of the stabilizing brace to the trigger. It is the ATF’s view that any length of pull beyond 13 1/2” is de facto proof of an NFA short-barreled rifle. This arbitrary length of 13 1/2” fails to take into account the distance from a bent index finger to the bicep of an adult male, which can be 15” or more. The ATF also fails to explain why lengths of pull less than this arbitrary 13 1/2” should be penalized on a sliding scale. This measurement should be more realistic, such as 15”, and should also be used as a strict “go/no go” criteria, not a criteria judged on a sliding points scale. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING LENGTH OF PULL GREATER THAN 13 1/2” AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER. However, if it is determined that 13 1/2" is indeed going to be the maximum standard, this commenter OBJECTS TO PENALIZING ANY LENGTHS OF PULL LESS THAN THE DESIGNATED MAXIMUM AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

ATTACHMENT METHOD: The ATF proposes to score a stabilizing brace by its attachment method, including assigning penalty points for spacers or folding adapters that increase the length of pull of the pistol with stabilizing brace. However, the ATF had already addressed length of pull in the previous section “LENGTH OF PULL,” therefore there is no reason why a stabilizing brace should be penalized for having spacers or folding adapters after the overall length of pull was already measured and scored. How the brace achieved its length of pull is not relevant to the question. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ATTACHMENT METHOD AS A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

“STABILIZING BRACE” MODIFICATIONS/CONFIGURATION: Here the ATF is attempting to score a stabilizing brace based on the presence or absence of an attaching strap, the length of the strap, and the materials the strap is fabricated from. The ATF had already scored the “Fin-type” stabilizing brace in the previous section titled “STABILIZING SUPPORT – “Fin-type” design WITHOUT Arm Strap.” Why the ATF felt the need to score the inclusion of an arm strap a second time is unclear. Also, it is unclear why the ATF feels that a nylon strap with an adjustment buckle is somehow more utilitarian on a stabilizing brace than a strap made from elastic material that does not need to be readjusted before each use. It is understandable that if a stabilizing brace requires a strap in order function as a brace, and that strap has been removed by the end user, or shortened to the point that it no longer can be used to secure the brace to the shooter’s forearm, that can be an indication of the user’s intent, but it is unclear why a sliding point scale is necessary. It should instead be a simple “go/no go” criteria if a “Cuff-type” brace has had its strap removed or permanently shortened by the user. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING STABILIZING BRACE MODIFICATIONS/CONFIGURATION BEYOND THE PRESENCE/ABSENSE OF A STRAP ON A CUFF-TYPE BRACE OR MODIFICATIONS TO BRACE FOR SHOULDERING AS A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES: The ATF attempts to present a myriad of firearm accessories that may be installed on a pistol with stabilizing brace by the end user or the manufacturer and assign arbitrary penalty points to each accessory. Each accessory should be examined separately, and either determined to be acceptable on a pistol with stabilizing brace, or be prohibited on a pistol with stabilizing brace. For example, the presence of a hand stop has always been considered acceptable on a pistol, but a vertical foregrip has not. Each of the listed peripheral accessories should be a simple “go/no go” determination. This commenter has no objection to classifying a secondary (vertical) grip or the presence of a scope/sights with eye relief incompatible with one-handed fire as de facto evidence of intent to use the pistol with stabilizing brace as a short-barreled rifle, but objects to assigning arbitrary lesser scores to other useful accessories such as flip-up backup sights, hand stops, and bipods. Also, as previously stated, there is no statutory definition of the maximum allowable weight of a pistol, and there is no authority given to the ATF to set such a maximum. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES OTHER THAN VERTICAL FOREGRIPS AND SHORT EYE-RELIEF SIGHTS AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINGING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

IN SUMMARY, this commenter objects to the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 as applied to an individual user of a pistol with attached stabilizing brace, and instead recommends that the following criteria be used as presumptive intent by the end user to circumvent the NFA SBR laws:

A weapon with stabilizing brace will be considered a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act if it has one or more of the following criteria:

* A length of pull greater than 15”
* A vertical foregrip.
* A scope or sight with eye relief incompatible with one-handed fire.
* A brace with attaching strap removed or too short to function properly.
* A brace modified for shouldering.

 

[old lady new shooter]

To that end, I have written the following draft comment. I post it in its entirety here, but it is so long that I may cut out all of the line-by-line analysis and just submit the first six and last three paragraphs, or a variation thereof.

***************************************

This commenter will focus on the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, “FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES commonly referred to as ‘STABILIZING BRACES’”

It is obvious that this worksheet is intended to mimic the worksheet used by the ATF titled FACTORING CRITERIA FOR WEAPONS, ATF Form 4590, which assesses a handgun submitted to the ATF for potential importation into the United States by examining the firearm and awarding “points” for certain features, or lack of features. Only if the proposed handgun meets or exceeds a stated “qualifying score” is the handgun then considered eligible for importation.

In a similar manner, the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 examines a firearm with attached stabilizing brace and assigns various penalty points to selected features and attributes of the weapon. If the accumulated points exceed a given score, then it will be determined that the firearm being examined is a not a pistol, but rather a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under the definition of the National Firearms Act (NFA.)

If the intent of this proposed form were for use in determining if a sample firearm submitted by a manufacturer or importer would be lawful to sell or import into the United States as a pistol with stabilizing brace, this commenter would have no objections to the ATF’s proposed Worksheet 4999. In that context, the ATF would either approve or disapprove of the submitted weapon, and if not approved the manufacturer or importer could then either object to the scoring and negotiate with the ATF, or else make modifications to the design to bring the firearm into compliance with the ATF scoring criteria. In either case, the manufacturer or importer would at no time be under criminal penalty for achieving a failing score on the Worksheet. They would simply be unable to sell or import the failing firearm design.

However, this is not the use ATF has proposed for Worksheet 4999. Instead, the ATF is proposing to use this Worksheet to attempt to ascertain the intent of an individual end user of a pistol with stabilizing brace and determine whether the user is in violation of the National Firearms Act against possessing a short-barreled rifle without the requisite mandatory Tax Stamp, which is a Federal felony offense.

It is the opinion of this commenter that such a convoluted and subjectively scored “worksheet” is not the proper way to attempt to ascertain intent on the part of an individual user and subject the person to possible felonious legal jeopardy. Instead, an individual user needs to be apprised of a very clear set of criteria that would be presumptive violations of the NFA SBR laws, in an easy-to-understand, item-by-item “GO/NO GO” manner.

This commenter will examine each section of the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 individually, and comment on its suitability towards the goal of a simplified GO/NO GO criteria in determining the intent of the user.

SECTION I – PREREQUISITES

The ATF proposes a minimum weight of 64 ounces and a minimum length of 12 inches for a pistol to “qualify” as a candidate for a Pistol Stabilizing Brace. There is no statutory definition of a pistol that states a minimum weight or length of a pistol, other than for importation purposes, therefore there is no authority granted to the ATF to make this determination. Further, setting a minimum weight or length for a pistol to “qualify” as a candidate for a pistol stabilizing brace does not take into account any physical disabilities or limitations of any individual shooter. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO MINIMUM WEIGHT OR LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLITY OF A PISTOL TO HAVE A STABILIZING BRACE ATTACHED.

The ATF also proposes that a pistol cannot exceed 26 inches in length in order to remain an eligible candidate for a stabilizing brace. There is no statutory definition of a pistol that states a maximum length that a pistol cannot exceed, therefore there is no authority granted to the ATF to set such a maximum allowable length. This commenter OBJECTS TO MAXIMUM LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBLITY OF A PISTOL TO HAVE A STABILIZING BRACE ATTACHED.

SECTION II – Accessory Characteristics

ACCESSORY DESIGN: The ATF proposes that the cosmetic design of the stabilizing brace somehow affects the utility of the brace for its intended use to stabilize the firearm during one handed firing. There is no evidence that the inclusion of sling attachment points, adjustment levers, or “hardened surfaces” detract from a stabilizing brace’s ability to function as intended. Indeed, adjustability makes it easier for the brace to be custom fit to each individual user, and should be considered an asset, not a detraction, from the utility of the stabilizing brace. Further, the ATF does not define what specific criteria constitutes a stabilizing brace to be considered “based on a known shoulder stock design.” Is the outline alone enough to be considered “based on a known shoulder stock design?” It is unclear. Therefore this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ANY ACCESSORY DESIGN CRITERIA AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

REAR SURFACE AREA: The ATF attempts to score a stabilizing brace based on the amount of rear surface area the brace possesses, with a sliding point scale that increases with the amount of area at the rear of the brace, yet does not provide an objective measurement in square inches how much surface area would garner how many points. Without an objective figure for surface area, and a stated means of how to measure surface area, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING REAR SURFACE AREA AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

ADJUSTABILITY: The ATF attempts to score a stabilizing brace’s ability to be adjusted as a factor against it in its utility as a stabilizing brace. As previously stated, adjustability can increase a stabilizing brace’s utility, in as much as it allows the brace to be properly fitted to different shooters. Further, the ATF had already included “adjustment levers” as a scoring criteria in the previous section “ACCESSORY DESIGN,” so scoring adjustability a second time is a form of “double jeopardy.” Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ADJUSTABILITY AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

STABILIZING SUPPORT: The ATF proposes to score a stabilizing brace based on its design style, with three different styles listed.

The Counterbalance Design would be penalized if the “tailhook” folded upwards when not in use. The folding of the stabilizing tailhook is a requirement to make the pistol transportable and storable in a case. Therefore, the Counterbalance design should not be penalized for having a folding tailhook, and indeed all current designs on the market include this feature. Therefore, folding tailhooks should not be held against a particular design.

The Fin-type would be penalized if it did not have an attached strap. However, the ATF never stipulated in their previous Determination Letters that such stabilizing brace designs had to include an arm strap. The fin-type brace uses the shooter’s horizontal ‘torque’ on the pistol’s handgrip to drive the fin into the shooter’s forearm in order to provide the necessary stabilization. Therefore, the lack of an arm strap should not be held against this design.

The “Cuff-type” of stabilizing brace is perhaps the most popular style, and curiously also the one most scrutinized by the ATF. The ATF is very inconsistent in their logic in assigning “points” against designs in cuff-type braces that it rewards in other styles of braces. For example, if a cuff-type brace has flexible material that only wraps partially around a forearm, yet still has a strap that fully encircles the shooter’s forearm, it is penalized. However, if a fin-style stabilizing brace that also fails to fully encircle the shooter’s forearm has a strap to perform that function, it is “rewarded” with zero points. The absence or presence of a strap could be used as a judging criteria, however the amount of “wrap” around the forearm should not. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING STABILIZING SUPPORT BEYOND THE PRESENSE OR ABSENSE OF AN ATTACHING STRAP AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

SECTION III – Configuration of Weapon

LENGTH OF PULL – w/Accessory in Rear most “Locked Position”: The ATF proposes that penalty points be awarded based on a sliding scale of the “length of pull” of the pistol from the rear of the stabilizing brace to the trigger. It is the ATF’s view that any length of pull beyond 13 1/2” is de facto proof of an NFA short-barreled rifle. This arbitrary length of 13 1/2” fails to take into account the distance from a bent index finger to the bicep of an adult male, which can be 15” or more. The ATF also fails to explain why lengths of pull less than this arbitrary 13 1/2” should be penalized on a sliding scale. This measurement should be more realistic, such as 15”, and should also be used as a strict “go/no go” criteria, not a criteria judged on a sliding points scale. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING LENGTH OF PULL GREATER THAN 13 1/2” AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER. However, if it is determined that 13 1/2" is indeed going to be the maximum standard, this commenter OBJECTS TO PENALIZING ANY LENGTHS OF PULL LESS THAN THE DESIGNATED MAXIMUM AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

ATTACHMENT METHOD: The ATF proposes to score a stabilizing brace by its attachment method, including assigning penalty points for spacers or folding adapters that increase the length of pull of the pistol with stabilizing brace. However, the ATF had already addressed length of pull in the previous section “LENGTH OF PULL,” therefore there is no reason why a stabilizing brace should be penalized for having spacers or folding adapters after the overall length of pull was already measured and scored. How the brace achieved its length of pull is not relevant to the question. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING ATTACHMENT METHOD AS A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

“STABILIZING BRACE” MODIFICATIONS/CONFIGURATION: Here the ATF is attempting to score a stabilizing brace based on the presence or absence of an attaching strap, the length of the strap, and the materials the strap is fabricated from. The ATF had already scored the “Fin-type” stabilizing brace in the previous section titled “STABILIZING SUPPORT – “Fin-type” design WITHOUT Arm Strap.” Why the ATF felt the need to score the inclusion of an arm strap a second time is unclear. Also, it is unclear why the ATF feels that a nylon strap with an adjustment buckle is somehow more utilitarian on a stabilizing brace than a strap made from elastic material that does not need to be readjusted before each use. It is understandable that if a stabilizing brace requires a strap in order function as a brace, and that strap has been removed by the end user, or shortened to the point that it no longer can be used to secure the brace to the shooter’s forearm, that can be an indication of the user’s intent, but it is unclear why a sliding point scale is necessary. It should instead be a simple “go/no go” criteria if a “Cuff-type” brace has had its strap removed or permanently shortened by the user. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING STABILIZING BRACE MODIFICATIONS/CONFIGURATION BEYOND THE PRESENCE/ABSENSE OF A STRAP ON A CUFF-TYPE BRACE OR MODIFICATIONS TO BRACE FOR SHOULDERING AS A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES: The ATF attempts to present a myriad of firearm accessories that may be installed on a pistol with stabilizing brace by the end user or the manufacturer and assign arbitrary penalty points to each accessory. Each accessory should be examined separately, and either determined to be acceptable on a pistol with stabilizing brace, or be prohibited on a pistol with stabilizing brace. For example, the presence of a hand stop has always been considered acceptable on a pistol, but a vertical foregrip has not. Each of the listed peripheral accessories should be a simple “go/no go” determination. This commenter has no objection to classifying a secondary (vertical) grip or the presence of a scope/sights with eye relief incompatible with one-handed fire as de facto evidence of intent to use the pistol with stabilizing brace as a short-barreled rifle, but objects to assigning arbitrary lesser scores to other useful accessories such as flip-up backup sights, hand stops, and bipods. Also, as previously stated, there is no statutory definition of the maximum allowable weight of a pistol, and there is no authority given to the ATF to set such a maximum. Therefore, this commenter OBJECTS TO USING PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES OTHER THAN VERTICAL FOREGRIPS AND SHORT EYE-RELIEF SIGHTS AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINGING THE INTENT OF THE USER.

IN SUMMARY, this commenter objects to the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 as applied to an individual user of a pistol with attached stabilizing brace, and instead recommends that the following criteria be used as presumptive intent by the end user to circumvent the NFA SBR laws:

A weapon with stabilizing brace will be considered a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act if it has one or more of the following criteria:

* A length of pull greater than 15”
* A vertical foregrip.
* A scope or sight with eye relief incompatible with one-handed fire.
* A brace with attaching strap removed or too short to function properly.
* A brace modified for shouldering.

I think you did a fantastic job. I would submit exactly as written.

 

[JohnKSa]

I don't think we should discount the point made above that braces which already received a determination letter that they do not make a pistol an SBR, should not be able to now be declared to make a pistol a SBR.

The BATF has a history of doing this. It's certainly problematic, however, there's not much that can be done about it. If anything, this could be seen as a step in the right direction. If they get away from an opinion letter to an established process, even if it's not ideal, at least there's something everyone can look at and work with instead of just wondering what the next opinion letter will say.

 

[lsudave]

The BATF has a history of doing this. It's certainly problematic, however, there's not much that can be done about it. If anything, this could be seen as a step in the right direction. If they get away from an opinion letter to an established process, even if it's not ideal, at least there's something everyone can look at and work with instead of just wondering what the next opinion letter will say.

That is a good point. I just got into the AR game last year, and recently (VERY recently) put together my first pistol.

As I understand it, total length is from end of buffer, to tip of barrel (NOT flash hider, which isn't permanently attached). That being the case, I am under 26", and thus own a pistol.

The brace I have, is a fin. It's attached to a standard milspec buffer. As I read this form, length of pull is from MAXIMUM rearward position, puts me just under 13". That is 3+1, no bueno. So I will watch this closely, and decide on which brace I may want going forward. I can remove the brace and keep it a pistol. I will not turn the gun in, or pay $200 to make it an SBR (If I did that, I'd replace the brace with a stock anyway). Looks like I will need to pick up some permanent iron sights, instead of using the flip-ups or optic I have laying around.... unless the next brace I would pick up meets the correct criteria.

 

[lsudave]

Excellent letter, John.

I'm a bit intrigued by the focus on length of pull... specifically going with points instead of a go/no-go as you pointed out. If it's to be used as a "brace", you WANT a little leverage with your forearm, instead of going right onto your wrist.
Similarly, the issue with the hand-stop. It's a different weapon, but the Shockwave has a strap on the foregrip, to keep you from accidentally blowing your forward hand off. The most effective means of shooting without shouldering is a 2-hand grip for any pistol; you can incorporate more body strength into holding the weapon steady. This gives better accuracy, and thus better safety- you would be more likely to hit what you are trying to, instead of waving it around.

And if you are okay with sights, why ding the flip-up sights? They work and provide the same picture you'd get from permanent, fixed sights. Scopes and other optics... I've seen them mounted on revolvers. The principle remains the same.

And of course, the "we may not like it anyway" clause at the end, has no place in any set of laws that can affect a person's livelihood. Either decide to ban it outright (and face the legal battles from everyone), or... don't. They've been on the market for years now. I was legally allowed to purchase it, I went through a 4473 check. The brace isn't the device that was logged, it was the lower receiver- as a pistol. If it met that criteria, then give me a list of what I CAN have, and allow me to configure it as I want within the letter of the law.

As I understand it, there are no laws limiting sights I can put on a handgun. I have seen scopes on revolvers, have seen red dots on things like the X5.

 

[F-111 John]

And if you are okay with sights, why ding the flip-up sights? They work and provide the same picture you'd get from permanent, fixed sights. Scopes and other optics... I've seen them mounted on revolvers. The principle remains the same.

The 'ding' the ATF is attempting to assign to flip up rifle sights is specifically the peep style of rear sight that is not compatible with the long eye relief you have when shooting one handed at arm's length. Handguns usually have either open notch rear sights or very large 'ghost ring' sights that presumably would not be penalized by the ATF. Ditto with scopes. The ATF is specifically targeting those scopes with a 3"-4" eye box that cannot be used at arm's length.

And of course, the "we may not like it anyway" clause at the end, has no place in any set of laws that can affect a person's livelihood.

That same clause is also on the ATF's form 4590 that they use to 'score' a handgun for potential importation. It says:

NOTE: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude importation of any revolver or pistol which achieves an apparent qualifying score but does not adhere to the provisions of Section 925(d)(3) of Amended Chapter 44, Title 18 U.S.C.​

As I understand it, there are no laws limiting sights I can put on a handgun. I have seen scopes on revolvers, have seen red dots on things like the X5.

No there are none that I am aware of, either, and that is the concerning part for me. As for scoped revolvers, there are specialized handgun scopes with long eye relief that have been available for many decades, used by hunters and target shooters on scoped handguns. Also, the ATF is not penalizing red dots with infinite eye relief, only red dots paired with flip-to-side magnifiers that have short eye relief.

Sure, this specific proposal is only for firearms with attached stabilizing braces, but some of their criteria could potentially be applied to AR style pistols without braces. 26" overall length, 7.5 lb max weight as configured by the end user which includes lasers, lights, bipods, etc., and short eye relief scopes. The only difference I can see is that there is nothing that could be construed as a "stock" on a pistol without a brace, other than a buffer tube. Some people put a single point sling on the back of their pistol, and use it to push forward to brace the pistol, two handed, in order to use a rifle length eye relief scope. But of course, the ATF frowns on designs that rely on two hand operation, so who knows.

 

[DoubleMag]

Somewhere someone should possibly mention in their letters...SOME ppl only fire from a bench with a rest ? NRA pistol training is...support the WRISTS on a sandbag or other similar etc. , to achieve the most stable firing position? Hmm?

 

[hso]

The 'ding' the ATF is attempting to assign to flip up rifle sights is specifically the peep style of rear sight that is not compatible with the long eye relief you have when shooting one handed at arm's length. Handguns usually have either open notch rear sights or very large 'ghost ring' sights that presumably would not be penalized by the ATF.

The ATF is ignoring that peep or ghost ring rear sights are used on handguns and there can be an argument made for them especially for the type of pistol they're focused on. They're probably not ignorant of pistol peep sights nor of the application on SBRs that would also benefit handicapped shooters using an arm brace for precision shooting, they're simply ignoring the fact that they exist for handgun applications.

https://thegunzone.com/best-glock-ghost-ring-sight-reviews/

 

[F-111 John]

Somewhere someone should possibly mention in their letters...SOME ppl only fire from a bench with a rest ? NRA pistol training is...support the WRISTS on a sandbag or other similar etc. , to achieve the most stable firing position? Hmm?

But the ATF is not going by what some people do, it's going by the statutory definition of a handgun, which in 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(29) says:

The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand

 

[F-111 John]

The ATF is ignoring that peep or ghost ring rear sights are used on handguns and there can be an argument made for them especially for the type of pistol they're focused on. They're probably not ignorant of pistol peep sights nor of the application on SBRs that would also benefit handicapped shooters using an arm brace for precision shooting, they're simply ignoring the fact that they exist for handgun applications.

https://thegunzone.com/best-glock-ghost-ring-sight-reviews/

This is the ATF's explanation (from the supplemental materials with the filing) on why they assigned a penalty point for rifle type sights:

Installed sights are also indicators as to the intended use of a firearm with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ ATF has examined numerous AR-type firearms with ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessories that lack any sight or that incorporate rifle-type flip-up or back-up iron sights (‘‘BUIS’’), which are only partially usable when firing the weapon with one hand. As such, the presence of this type of sight or lack of any sight will accrue 1 point.

Given that, I don't think that the ATF would penalize handgun ghost ring sights if they are usable at arm's length. Only rifle-type peep sights that require a short eye relief to be usable.

 

[hso]

But that becomes arbitrary as to what is and isn't usable at arm's length since "arm's length" is so variable across the population of the USA.

 

[DoubleMag]

''The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand''

Yes. Absolutely, a very good point. Let's not advocate running afoul of the law. Designed to be used vs as used, item is designed one way but used another is NOT a factor, unless the user re-designs the item.
Anyone who fires a pistol one handed, using a bench rest, fires it....with at LEAST one hand on it? And, they are in fact holding it still? Yes? Yes.

I have never seen anyone fire a pistol, rifle, shotgun or other from a bench rest without having at least one hand on it. I have seen ppl fire one handed from a supported rest i.e. bench rest, shoot sandbag etc., their wrist area supported, to get a better grouping, test firing a new pistol for group, etc.

 

[MrBitey]

I uploaded comments for 2021R-08 (second time commenting, getting better at this I think). I found the following two letters helpful for coming up with talking points:

https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/publ...to-ag-and-acting-dirctor-of-atf-6.24.2021.pdf

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/Hawley-ATF-Letter-Rulemakings.pdf

 

[DoubleMag]

A firebrand is ^^ amongst us

GOOD WORK

 

[old lady new shooter]

I saw on Guns & Gadgets that 48 senators sent a letter stating that the proposed regulation should be withdrawn. He read it out loud and briefly showed it online but as with the letter from 141 members of congress, again did not include a link to the text, grrr. THANK YOU @MrBitey FOR POSTING THE LETTER!

One point made in the letter that I think is very important to stress is that an owner of a braced pistol who would decide to register it as an SBR under NFA would be unable to use it until the permit would be processed, which given the huge surge of applications that would likely be experienced would mean the owner would be deprived of the use of his or her weapon for many months. This is not how NFA is supposed to work, a person buying an NFA item knows it will take x amount of time to be approved, but to require this for a weapon that was completely legal when purchased is a very significant infringement of the person's right to keep and bear arms, all the more so since most people buy these for home defense. Can't exactly post a sign outside your house saying "Mob please come back after my NFA permit is issued."

 

[old lady new shooter]

Woohoo! I found the letter from the members of congress.

I have attached it in case the link doesn't work, but here is the link:
https://hudson.house.gov/sites/huds...TF re Stabilizing Brace Proposed Guidance.pdf

 

[DoubleMag]

Well....the US Reps know the EFFECTIVENESS of writing letters, even as short as that one!


Don't sell yourself short! Your position is IMPORTANT! Submit your very basic comments soon folks!

 

[old lady new shooter]

Personally I find the letter from the senators much more effective than the one from the congresscritters, but at least DOJ and ATF now know that a large percentage of the folks representing We the People strongly oppose this proposal.

 

[old lady new shooter]

REMINDER: September 8 is the deadline to submit comments!!!

 

[Beerry2]

The 'ding' the ATF is attempting to assign to flip up rifle sights is specifically the peep style of rear sight that is not compatible with the long eye relief you have when shooting one handed at arm's length. Handguns usually have either open notch rear sights or very large 'ghost ring' sights that presumably would not be penalized by the ATF. Ditto with scopes. The ATF is specifically targeting those scopes with a 3"-4" eye box that cannot be used at arm's length.



That same clause is also on the ATF's form 4590 that they use to 'score' a handgun for potential importation. It says:

NOTE: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude importation of any revolver or pistol which achieves an apparent qualifying score but does not adhere to the provisions of Section 925(d)(3) of Amended Chapter 44, Title 18 U.S.C.​

No there are none that I am aware of, either, and that is the concerning part for me. As for scoped revolvers, there are specialized handgun scopes with long eye relief that have been available for many decades, used by hunters and target shooters on scoped handguns. Also, the ATF is not penalizing red dots with infinite eye relief, only red dots paired with flip-to-side magnifiers that have short eye relief.

Sure, this specific proposal is only for firearms with attached stabilizing braces, but some of their criteria could potentially be applied to AR style pistols without braces. 26" overall length, 7.5 lb max weight as configured by the end user which includes lasers, lights, bipods, etc., and short eye relief scopes. The only difference I can see is that there is nothing that could be construed as a "stock" on a pistol without a brace, other than a buffer tube. Some people put a single point sling on the back of their pistol, and use it to push forward to brace the pistol, two handed, in order to use a rifle length eye relief scope. But of course, the ATF frowns on designs employee tracking software that rely on two hand operation, so who knows.

I did not know about this information