ATF New Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces"
- Thread starter F-111 John
- Start date
- Status
TX AG Ken Paxton steps up to the plate once more:
Texas: Attorney General Paxton Opposes Latest DoJ/ATF Attack
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Support NRA-ILA
Yesterday, Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) opposing the recently proposed rule: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”. On June 7th, ATF published a new notice of this proposed rulemaking on its website. The rule seems aimed at making nearly all configurations of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces subject to the taxation and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. You may click here to read Paxton’s letter.
Attorney General Paxton argues that, “The stabilizing brace is used for a range of legitimate purposes. For many, the accessory helps reduce recoil, prevent injury, and allows individuals to more safely and accurately operate a pistol. The accessory also allows disabled individuals to more easily and safely control heavy pistols without assistance.” He also states that his office “will consider all available options to stop this action and any effort to restrict Second Amendment rights.”
NRA thanks Attorney General Paxton for taking a stand against President Biden’s latest attack on Second Amendment rights. If you would like to thank him as well, please click the button below.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/contact-us-online-form
https://www.nrailafrontlines.com/textme
IN THIS ARTICLE
Texas ATF DOJ
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210610/texas-attorney-general-paxton-opposes-latest-doj-atf-attack
Texas: Attorney General Paxton Opposes Latest DoJ/ATF Attack
Thursday, June 10, 2021
Support NRA-ILAYesterday, Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) opposing the recently proposed rule: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”. On June 7th, ATF published a new notice of this proposed rulemaking on its website. The rule seems aimed at making nearly all configurations of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces subject to the taxation and registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. You may click here to read Paxton’s letter.
Attorney General Paxton argues that, “The stabilizing brace is used for a range of legitimate purposes. For many, the accessory helps reduce recoil, prevent injury, and allows individuals to more safely and accurately operate a pistol. The accessory also allows disabled individuals to more easily and safely control heavy pistols without assistance.” He also states that his office “will consider all available options to stop this action and any effort to restrict Second Amendment rights.”
NRA thanks Attorney General Paxton for taking a stand against President Biden’s latest attack on Second Amendment rights. If you would like to thank him as well, please click the button below.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/contact-us-online-form
https://www.nrailafrontlines.com/textme
IN THIS ARTICLE
Texas ATF DOJ
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210610/texas-attorney-general-paxton-opposes-latest-doj-atf-attack
Last edited:
That's why it is in General.
Here in Activism we want to workshop the viable actions that we need to take instead of hand wringing/ranting seen there. We also assume that we are acting to have the broadest and most favorable result for gun owners instead of arguing braces are a violation of NFA rules on SBRs.
With the comment period open we need to follow the comment rules when we are constructing our responses opposing these proposed changes if we want our input to count.
While the comment period is open we also need to be reaching out to our Governors and our Senators and Representatives that will suppoet us stating our expectation that they act to limit these restrictions. They have different channels to influence the BATFE.
Last edited:
FYI for comment rules.
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. ATF also requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Additionally, ATF requests comments on providing a tax forgiveness for the registration of “short-barreled rifles” pursuant to this proposed rule.
ATF recognizes that individuals may have submitted comments previously in response to a notice ATF published on December 18, 2020, titled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces.' ” 85 FR 82516. However, the notice was withdrawn on December 31, 2020, prior to the comment period ending. 85 FR 86948. Moreover, this proposed rule incorporates different provisions than the December 2020 notice did, including a series of objective factors that are weighted in order to reflect objective decisions based on the design elements of each “stabilizing brace.” Comments received pursuant to that notice have not been, and will not be, considered as part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this proposed rule.
All comments should reference this document's docket number ATF 2021R-08, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain all comments as part of this rulemaking's administrative record. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the closing date, and will give comments after that date the same consideration if practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
In addition to the broader requests for comment outlined above, ATF is interested in specific comments from the public that may help address the following questions:
1. How do current owners of stabilizing braces anticipate that they will choose to comply with this rulemaking if it is finalized? Are owners more likely to permanently remove or alter their braces, turn in their firearms with a brace to ATF, or register them with ATF as NFA firearms and pay the associated tax? Would owners be more likely to register their firearms instead of choosing one of the other options if the tax on the registration is forgiven?
2. How do manufacturers anticipate they will comply with this rulemaking, if finalized? Will manufacturers stop making stabilizing braces, alter their stabilizing braces in some manner so they don't meet the criteria in this rulemaking, or market their braces differently?
3. Has ATF selected the most appropriate criteria for determining whether a stabilizing brace has made a firearm subject to the NFA? Do commenters have additional criteria that should be considered?
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who do not want their name or other personal identifying information posted on the internet should submit comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet containing their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and comment should reference this docket number (2021R-08). For comments submitted by mail or facsimile, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted on the internet but any personal identifying information that appears within a comment will not be redacted by ATF and will appear on the internet.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or confidential business information. The commenter shall place any portion of a comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law on pages separate from the balance of the comment with each page prominently marked “PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it received but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal process.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted. Comments not satisfying these requirements may not be considered by ATF.
2. Be on 81/2″ x 11″ paper;
3. Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address; and
4. Be no more than five pages long.
D. Request for Hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it will be available through the Federal eRulemaking portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA55), and for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. ATF also requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits. Additionally, ATF requests comments on providing a tax forgiveness for the registration of “short-barreled rifles” pursuant to this proposed rule.
ATF recognizes that individuals may have submitted comments previously in response to a notice ATF published on December 18, 2020, titled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces.' ” 85 FR 82516. However, the notice was withdrawn on December 31, 2020, prior to the comment period ending. 85 FR 86948. Moreover, this proposed rule incorporates different provisions than the December 2020 notice did, including a series of objective factors that are weighted in order to reflect objective decisions based on the design elements of each “stabilizing brace.” Comments received pursuant to that notice have not been, and will not be, considered as part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this proposed rule.
All comments should reference this document's docket number ATF 2021R-08, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain all comments as part of this rulemaking's administrative record. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the closing date, and will give comments after that date the same consideration if practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
In addition to the broader requests for comment outlined above, ATF is interested in specific comments from the public that may help address the following questions:
1. How do current owners of stabilizing braces anticipate that they will choose to comply with this rulemaking if it is finalized? Are owners more likely to permanently remove or alter their braces, turn in their firearms with a brace to ATF, or register them with ATF as NFA firearms and pay the associated tax? Would owners be more likely to register their firearms instead of choosing one of the other options if the tax on the registration is forgiven?
2. How do manufacturers anticipate they will comply with this rulemaking, if finalized? Will manufacturers stop making stabilizing braces, alter their stabilizing braces in some manner so they don't meet the criteria in this rulemaking, or market their braces differently?
3. Has ATF selected the most appropriate criteria for determining whether a stabilizing brace has made a firearm subject to the NFA? Do commenters have additional criteria that should be considered?
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who do not want their name or other personal identifying information posted on the internet should submit comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet containing their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and comment should reference this docket number (2021R-08). For comments submitted by mail or facsimile, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted on the internet but any personal identifying information that appears within a comment will not be redacted by ATF and will appear on the internet.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or confidential business information. The commenter shall place any portion of a comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law on pages separate from the balance of the comment with each page prominently marked “PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it received but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal process.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted. Comments not satisfying these requirements may not be considered by ATF.
- Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is provided after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
- Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments should appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches), include the commenter's first and last name and full mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length. Mailed comments will be treated as timely if they are postmarked on or before the last day of the comment period.
- Facsimile: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must:
2. Be on 81/2″ x 11″ paper;
3. Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last name and full mailing address; and
4. Be no more than five pages long.
D. Request for Hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it will be available through the Federal eRulemaking portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA55), and for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-8740.
Regardless if you have a brace or how you feel about them, we need to contact the ATF.
There is probably a thread or two on this already but this is direct from SB who pretty much invented the brace,
Stop the ATF!
With your help we stopped the ATF before and we can do it again!
Join us in the fight to protect our rights as Americans.
https://www.sb-tactical.com/
https://www.sb-tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ATF-Proposed-Rule-Stabilizing-Braces.pdf
There is probably a thread or two on this already but this is direct from SB who pretty much invented the brace,
Stop the ATF!
With your help we stopped the ATF before and we can do it again!
Join us in the fight to protect our rights as Americans.
https://www.sb-tactical.com/
https://www.sb-tactical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ATF-Proposed-Rule-Stabilizing-Braces.pdf
OP
OP
F-111 John
Member
Thanks and sorry I cross posted. I saw the previous 'split frame' comment in this forum, and so I put my post in here after it got locked out of the Legal forum.
I suppose this thread can get locked as well.
Not at all. We're where we try to get constructive work done. General is where the venting and rending of garments with no focus and few rules takes place. As such we will have the same topic touched on in both places frequently. We're just trying to accomplish something constructive here so we're far more narrowly focused with the rules to keep that work and focus.
If we get outside of the Activism rules instead of doing the job before us that might happen, but we'd hope that folks understand that our purpose is to work a practical plan responding to the propose rules change.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...asis-on-work-read-this-before-posting.270671/
Last edited:
So two areas we can point to that these proposed rules are weak are on length and diameter of the braces. The following comments may be useful.
The proposed "wrap around" requirement ignores the range of sizes of American forearms. A brace that wraps around the arm of a 20 year old wounded female veteran under these criteria might not wrap around the forearm of a wheelchair bound male weightlifting veteran. What criteria is fair and reasonable to both? One that accommodates the range of size for citizens' forearms. How is it practical to set an arbitrary number and how is it practical to set any criteria if the range of forearms of citizens ranges from a few to nearly a dozen inches? Allowing for the fit of the brace to accommodate the range of citizens in the US is only reasonable.
The proposed adjustable length requirement suffers from the same issues. Length of forearm for the earlier range of wounded warriors can be so different as to make limiting length of the brace to a fixed max or min number prejudicial against one or the other of them. Would the ATF decide to exclude females who have been disabled serving their country honorably after their training to use the AR gave them an appreciation for the shooting sports? What about civilians that have taken up the shooting sports because they have different capabilities of other athletes? Would the ATF shut some of them out for an arbitrary length rule? Adjustable lengths on braces to accommodate the range of citizens in the US is only reasonable.
The proposed adjustable length requirement suffers from the same issues. Length of forearm for the earlier range of wounded warriors can be so different as to make limiting length of the brace to a fixed max or min number prejudicial against one or the other of them. Would the ATF decide to exclude females who have been disabled serving their country honorably after their training to use the AR gave them an appreciation for the shooting sports? What about civilians that have taken up the shooting sports because they have different capabilities of other athletes? Would the ATF shut some of them out for an arbitrary length rule? Adjustable lengths on braces to accommodate the range of citizens in the US is only reasonable.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
Given that the document is 71 pages long I am unsure as to the best way to attack submitting a comment. I see above that the rules are silent as to a size limit of comments submitted via the online portal, and limit the length of comments submitted by fax. Only mailed comments are described as being allowed to be of any length. If a person intends to comment point by point on the entire document and also does not want their name posted on the internet, mailed is the only option, unless it is allowed to submit multiple comments.
Is there a consensus as to the best choice among commenting point by point, commenting on a few selected points, or just saying this is a backdoor to a registry and therefore unacceptable? What are the pros and cons of each of these options?
Another question: What, if anything, is BATFE required to do with comments besides post them? Are they required to respond? If not how do we know if they even read them?
EDITED AFTER RE-READING THE RULES POSTED EARLIER.
Is there a consensus as to the best choice among commenting point by point, commenting on a few selected points, or just saying this is a backdoor to a registry and therefore unacceptable? What are the pros and cons of each of these options?
Another question: What, if anything, is BATFE required to do with comments besides post them? Are they required to respond? If not how do we know if they even read them?
EDITED AFTER RE-READING THE RULES POSTED EARLIER.
Last edited:
I thought this was all covered in the previous Frame thread, but...
Do my comments make a difference?
Yes. Public participation matters. Democratic, legal, and management principles justify why public comments make a difference in regulatory policy. Public participation is an essential function of good governance. Participation enhances the quality of law and its realization through regulations (e.g. Rules).
Useful guide for commenting - https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/how-to-submit-public-comment/
Another path for commenting is directly through the Federal Register itself. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces Comments button leads to https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment
Instructions: All submissions received should include the agency name and docket number (ATF 2021R-08) for this notice of proposed rulemaking. All properly completed comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted. Comments not satisfying these requirements may not be considered by ATF.
How do I submit a comment on Regulations.gov?
The "Comment" button can be found on the following pages:
Upon completion, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment.
Some agencies also accept comments by mail, fax, or email. To find out if you can use one of these alternate methods, visit the document's section labelled "Addresses."
Users cannot submit comments on documents published by Non-Participating Agencies.
For step by step instructions, please see the Submit a Comment article.
How do I attach items to a comment?
On a document's associated "Write a Comment" page:
Before you submit a comment, you must enter all required fields.
How many files can I upload to the comment form?
You can attach up to 20 files, but each file cannot exceed 10MB. Valid file types include: .bmp, .docx, .gif, .jpeg, .jpg, .pdf, .png, .pptx, .rtf, .sgml, .tif, .tiff, .txt, .wpd, .xlsx, .xml.
Can I edit my comment after submitting?
Comments are not retrievable once submitted. To make changes, submit another comment referring to your previous comment correcting any errors and/or re-stating your position or opinion.
For additional questions, please contact the agency directly.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted. Comments not satisfying these requirements may not be considered by ATF.
- Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is provided after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
How do I submit a comment on Regulations.gov?
The "Comment" button can be found on the following pages:
- Docket Details page when a document within the docket is open for comment,
- Document Details page when the document is open for comment, and
- Document Search Tab with all search results open for comment displaying a "Comment" button.
Upon completion, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment.
Some agencies also accept comments by mail, fax, or email. To find out if you can use one of these alternate methods, visit the document's section labelled "Addresses."
Users cannot submit comments on documents published by Non-Participating Agencies.
For step by step instructions, please see the Submit a Comment article.
How do I attach items to a comment?
On a document's associated "Write a Comment" page:
- Drag and drop your files in the dotted square or select "Browse" to find an attachment stored on your computer or other disk.
- Select the file(s) you want to attach. The name of the file(s) will appear in the File Name field in the Upload file browser. Regulations.gov accepts the following file types: .bmp, .docx, .gif, .jpeg, .jpg, .pdf, .png, .pptx, .rtf, .sgml, .tif, .tiff, .txt, .wpd, .xlsx, .xml.
- Click the "Open" button to confirm you have found the correct file(s).
- Your file(s) will be scanned and uploaded one at a time. If there are any issues in uploading your file(s) an error will display and you will need to delete the corrupted file by clicking the 'X' before submitting your comment.
- If a file contains multiple submissions, click "Yes" in the multiple submissions field and indicate how many submissions are included in the file.
Before you submit a comment, you must enter all required fields.
How many files can I upload to the comment form?
You can attach up to 20 files, but each file cannot exceed 10MB. Valid file types include: .bmp, .docx, .gif, .jpeg, .jpg, .pdf, .png, .pptx, .rtf, .sgml, .tif, .tiff, .txt, .wpd, .xlsx, .xml.
Can I edit my comment after submitting?
Comments are not retrievable once submitted. To make changes, submit another comment referring to your previous comment correcting any errors and/or re-stating your position or opinion.
For additional questions, please contact the agency directly.
Do my comments make a difference?
Yes. Public participation matters. Democratic, legal, and management principles justify why public comments make a difference in regulatory policy. Public participation is an essential function of good governance. Participation enhances the quality of law and its realization through regulations (e.g. Rules).
Useful guide for commenting - https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/how-to-submit-public-comment/
Another path for commenting is directly through the Federal Register itself. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces Comments button leads to https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment
Last edited:
Phaedrus/69
Member
Thanks! I did submit a concise, polite and respectful comment to ATF. In actual reality I don't know if they read the comments with a sincere desire to hear our positions but I feel that we all have to do what we can.
OP
OP
F-111 John
Member
Alright, serious questions about how to respond to this ATF Proposed Rule.
On the one hand, if I'm totally honest, stabilizing braces were originally approved as an aid for disabled shooters to more easily and safely shoot rifle-caliber pistols. However, in practice pistol braces have become a de facto work around to avoid the NFA SBR tax stamp. So I can understand why (without necessarily agreeing with) the Biden Administration directed the ATF to promulgate these rules.
On the other hand, pistol braces were "approved" by the ATF Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division for use on rifle-caliber pistols, and the ATF approved certain rifle-caliber pistols to be sold as pistols. Therefore, if a firearm was legally sold as a pistol, and the pistol has an "approved" brace attached, then the combination should also be legal and that should be the end of the discussion.
So then my dilemma is this: Do I write a response arguing the merits of each line item within the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, such as what the cutoff of the weight of the pistol/ brace combination should be, what the overall length of the pistol/brace should be, why the attachment manner (folding mechanism, carbine buffer vs. pistol buffer, etc.,) should or should not matter, why a hand stop is a safety device and should not be given a score, etc.
Or do I take the tempting route and respond with a polite version of "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
My underlying worry is that whatever criteria used that can cause a braced pistol to cross the line and become an SBR could one day also be applied to rifle-caliber pistols without stabilizing braces attached. For example: if a braced pistol weighs more than 7.5 lbs, it automatically becomes an SBR. Does a pistol without a stabilizing brace that weighs more than 7.5 lbs also become an SBR? If you attach an LPVO with "eye relief incompatible with one handed fire" to a braced pistol, it automatically becomes an SBR. Does attaching the same optic to an unbraced pistol also cause it to automatically become an SBR? A braced pistol with an overall length of greater than 26" automatically becomes an SBR. Does an unbraced pistol with an overall length greater than 26" also become an SBR, or does the ATF currently refuse to classify a firearm longer than 26" as a pistol? (I know that Henry's Mare's Leg pistol is 25" long.) What if you have a 25" long unbraced pistol, and you add a muzzle device that raises the overall length beyond 26"? Does the unbraced pistol now automatically become an SBR?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
On the one hand, if I'm totally honest, stabilizing braces were originally approved as an aid for disabled shooters to more easily and safely shoot rifle-caliber pistols. However, in practice pistol braces have become a de facto work around to avoid the NFA SBR tax stamp. So I can understand why (without necessarily agreeing with) the Biden Administration directed the ATF to promulgate these rules.
On the other hand, pistol braces were "approved" by the ATF Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division for use on rifle-caliber pistols, and the ATF approved certain rifle-caliber pistols to be sold as pistols. Therefore, if a firearm was legally sold as a pistol, and the pistol has an "approved" brace attached, then the combination should also be legal and that should be the end of the discussion.
So then my dilemma is this: Do I write a response arguing the merits of each line item within the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999, such as what the cutoff of the weight of the pistol/ brace combination should be, what the overall length of the pistol/brace should be, why the attachment manner (folding mechanism, carbine buffer vs. pistol buffer, etc.,) should or should not matter, why a hand stop is a safety device and should not be given a score, etc.
Or do I take the tempting route and respond with a polite version of "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"
My underlying worry is that whatever criteria used that can cause a braced pistol to cross the line and become an SBR could one day also be applied to rifle-caliber pistols without stabilizing braces attached. For example: if a braced pistol weighs more than 7.5 lbs, it automatically becomes an SBR. Does a pistol without a stabilizing brace that weighs more than 7.5 lbs also become an SBR? If you attach an LPVO with "eye relief incompatible with one handed fire" to a braced pistol, it automatically becomes an SBR. Does attaching the same optic to an unbraced pistol also cause it to automatically become an SBR? A braced pistol with an overall length of greater than 26" automatically becomes an SBR. Does an unbraced pistol with an overall length greater than 26" also become an SBR, or does the ATF currently refuse to classify a firearm longer than 26" as a pistol? (I know that Henry's Mare's Leg pistol is 25" long.) What if you have a 25" long unbraced pistol, and you add a muzzle device that raises the overall length beyond 26"? Does the unbraced pistol now automatically become an SBR?
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Gridley
Member
My $0.02: the former. There will be plenty of people doing the latter. There will also be plenty of people doing the impolite version of the latter.
I gave in to temptation on the receiver insanity. It was temporarily satisfying but I'm fairly certain it didn't do any good.
Of course my carefully written and detailed comment on the bumpstock ban didn't do any good either. :-(
Under this administration I'm pretty sure the ATF is announcing what it has already decided to do rather than using the public comment process as it was intended to be used, but if we follow the rules we can suck up their resources and minimize how much time they have to do something else.
As you imply, that approach may be emotionally satisfying, but it won't contribute as much as a detailed argument for or against specific points in the proposed change. The comments are already flooded with the short "shall not be infringed" statements.
As to the cynical question of whether submitting comments really matters -
Comments periods are serious business and will be published in the Federal Register. The electronic comments allow for attachments where a point could be addressed individually or data supporting a position could be added with the comment being submitted. They're all part of making our voice heard. It is never a useless or pointless process if we treat it seriously since at the very least it will be entered into record.
Last edited:
SilentStalker
Member
Can someone post up an example of their letter or submission once they have submitted? It helps me to read over what others have written to help formulate my own. Also to note, each submission must be unique. Form letters like the NRA and GOA are doing simply won’t work. They will be tossed. I’m not exactly sure how they identify all the ones that are similar or form letters perse but they do somehow which is why not everyone will see their stuff submitted because it goes against an approval process first.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
Rep. Richard Hudson and 140 other Members of Congress sent a letter to the Attorney General stating that this proposed new rule should be withdrawn. Jared at Guns & Gadgets read it aloud in his video on the topic:
but did not include a link to the actual text, which I have so far been unable to find online either. I emailed him asking him to please add it. Meanwhile excerpts from the letter appear on Hudson's official website at
https://hudson.house.gov/in-the-new...pistol-rule-a-tax-on-disabled-combat-veterans
but did not include a link to the actual text, which I have so far been unable to find online either. I emailed him asking him to please add it. Meanwhile excerpts from the letter appear on Hudson's official website at
https://hudson.house.gov/in-the-new...pistol-rule-a-tax-on-disabled-combat-veterans
OP
OP
F-111 John
Member
For discussion and modification, here is my draft response that has NOT been sent yet:
I was going to write a line-by-line rebuttal of the proposed Worksheet ATF 4999, but I instead decided to focus on the legality of creating new rules that put existing gun owners in legal jeopardy for previously legal activity. This is what the 6th Circuit struck down with the ATF's Bump Stock ruling in Gun Owners of America v. Garland.
Thoughts?
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.
This proposed Form 4999 is not being used to determine if any given handgun with stabilizing brace that is submitted to the ATF for evaluation would be legal for sale, it is being used to determine if an EXISTING FIREARM OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS AN NFA FIREARM.
That is a completely different purpose for this form than the prototype ATF Form 4590, and one that may not be legal under the ruling by the 6th Circuit Court in the case of Gun Owners of America v. Garland, which struck down the ATF’s ability to fabricate out of whole cloth new law under the guise of expanded regulations promulgated under the so-called “Chevron Deference” that would place existing individual owners of firearms in legal jeopardy, without explicit Congressional action directing the ATF to do so.
For that reason, this commenter OBJECTS TO THE ENTIRE PROPOSED RULE FOR FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED “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.
This proposed Form 4999 is not being used to determine if any given handgun with stabilizing brace that is submitted to the ATF for evaluation would be legal for sale, it is being used to determine if an EXISTING FIREARM OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN IS AN NFA FIREARM.
That is a completely different purpose for this form than the prototype ATF Form 4590, and one that may not be legal under the ruling by the 6th Circuit Court in the case of Gun Owners of America v. Garland, which struck down the ATF’s ability to fabricate out of whole cloth new law under the guise of expanded regulations promulgated under the so-called “Chevron Deference” that would place existing individual owners of firearms in legal jeopardy, without explicit Congressional action directing the ATF to do so.
For that reason, this commenter OBJECTS TO THE ENTIRE PROPOSED RULE FOR FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED “STABILIZING BRACES”
I was going to write a line-by-line rebuttal of the proposed Worksheet ATF 4999, but I instead decided to focus on the legality of creating new rules that put existing gun owners in legal jeopardy for previously legal activity. This is what the 6th Circuit struck down with the ATF's Bump Stock ruling in Gun Owners of America v. Garland.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
I think this is fantastic rebuttal summation thnx
!FACT: The BATFE XYZ (lol) has already utilized a so-called ''work sheet'' and criteria for approving braces, it's called the DETERMINATION LETTER. Whereas, the manufacture says ''I have an idea'' and submits the item to the Fed for approval...
Are we to believer that the BATFE determination procedure is faulty and the BATFE's defacto answer in THIS for-instance is, ''YES IT IS.''
What OTHER procedures that the BATFE XYZ uses are also therefore faulty? Hmmm?
CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS... at a MINIMUM...the currently approved items via the DETERMINATION LETTER method are legit, and should fall under grandfathering....
There are two huge differences between this and the bump stock issue.
1. Bump stocks were defined to be machineguns by the new ruling (before it was struck down). That means if you had one, you were in violation and you couldn't stop being in violation until you destroyed the bump stock. You couldn't take it off the gun and be legal. You couldn't sell it to anyone. There was no path to legality under the law that didn't involve destroying your property. In this case, all you have to do if your brace is determined to be a stock is remove it from the handgun it's installed on. It's still perfectly legal to own and you can even use it if you don't put it on a handgun. You can sell it if you want. And if you do want to put it on a handgun, there's a clear path in the law for achieving that result legally.
2. Bump stocks clearly do not meet the explicit legal definition of machinegun so it wasn't a stretch for the courts to rule that it would take a change to the law to make them illegal. An opinion by an administering agency wasn't enough. But there's no similarly explicit definition of "stock' or 'brace' in the law so it isn't doesn't require a change to the law to define one--it just takes a 'reasonable interpretation'. In other words, the Chevron deference clearly didn't apply to redefining bump stocks as machineguns because Congress had spoken directly to the precise issue of defining machineguns in the law. However, it could very likely apply to the brace vs. stock issue because Congress hasn't spoken directly to the precise issue of defining either one. Then it just becomes a matter of what is a reasonable interpretation of the existing law by the administering agency until legislation is passed to speak to the issue--if it ever is.
It is, in my opinion, a mistake to try to equate these two issues from a legal standpoint.
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).
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
What I would like is a text or pdf version of the whole document so I could copy and paste sections of it.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
I don't think we should discount the point made above that braces which already received a determination letter that they are legal, should not be able to now be declared illegal.
They aren't being declared illegal. They're just being redefined to be shoulder stocks in which case they can't be installed on handguns without satisfying NFA requirements--just like every other shoulder stock in the U.S.
They will still be perfectly legal to own and even to use--just like every other shoulder stock in the U.S.--just not on handguns.
They will still be perfectly legal to own and even to use--just like every other shoulder stock in the U.S.--just not on handguns.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,665
The point is that they are changing the rules in the middle of the game.
I'll reword what I wrote:
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.
I'll reword what I wrote:
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.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2021/06/11/comment-atf-regulations/
How to Effectively Comment on Proposed ATF Regulations
1. Focus Focus Focus
One of the easiest things for us to do when submitting a comment regarding any specific rulemaking is to get off in the weeds about something else that might be tangentially related to the current topic at hand. I most recently submitted a comment on ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 which is specifically talking about pistol braces. While it would be easy for me to also comment about 80% receivers, I should specifically avoid that because to a bureaucrat anything not specifically related to the topic at hand will just be thrown out as useless information.
So when you go to submit a comment, stay focused on the topic at hand. For ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 you can make specific mention of the following items regarding pistol braces:
John Hancock is probably best remembered for his extremely large and ostentatious signature on the Declaration of Independence. I know it seems really cool to remain anonymous online but when it comes to ATF rulemaking, you’ll want to make sure the ATF knows you’re a real person. Don’t use an alias, fake name, imaginary name, meme name, offensive name, or any other name that isn’t your own.
Like I said above, bureaucrats don’t tend to receive online humor well and they will more than likely throw out a comment instantly if the name SniperDragon420 shows up in the name field. You’ll also want to avoid any profanity, name-calling, or accusations against the ATF or their personnel that could be construed as personal attacks. The most effective comments will be ones that are polite, to the point, and show that you have a clear understanding of the proposed rulemaking and why you disagree with it.
3. Don’t Spam the ATF – Spread the Word Instead
The ATF does in fact review and classifies each comment they receive as being “for” or “against” their proposed rulemaking. The ATF also keeps track of how many comments are essentially cut and paste versions of the same prefab comment and while this might be an effective way to flood the ATF with the same information, it simply doesn’t look good on our part.
Leave a unique comment. Remember to keep it to the point and on the topic but make it your own. Use your own language and don’t submit several comments just to pump the numbers up. You should encourage your friends, your parents, your kids, and anyone who is even remotely interested in firearms to write their own comment. Social media is often a tool that can be weaponized to spread awareness on an important subject so you should use your access to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all other social media platforms to encourage others to take action.
4. Some Simple Do’s and Don’ts
To sum things up in a more concise matter here is a small list of Do’s and Don’ts to help you construct your own comment to the ATF:
Do:
A number of years ago I was sent to court to contest a traffic ticket that was handed to me in a completely improper way. Instead of cursing the officer who wrote me the citation, the bailiff who made me sit in the courtroom for 2 hours waiting for my case to be heard, or the judge who mispronounced my last name, I instead remained calm. Boring story short, I presented myself in a respectful manner, spoke plainly, presented my factual evidence and in less than 5 minutes my chargers were dismissed – easy as pie.
On the flip side of things, during my 2-hour wait in that courtroom, I saw numerous guys swaggering into court in sweatpants, speaking incoherently, getting agitated and verbose with the Judge various staff inside the courtroom, and in the end, three of them received what I believed to be far worse sentences than they would have had they simply taken the time to calmly and logically respond.
It’s times like we are now where a dispassionate and logical response can mean the difference between making a good impression or getting the hammer dropped on you.
To Read ATF Proposed rule 2021R-08, you can click HERE.
To Submit your own Comment on ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces” you can click HERE.
Related Documents regarding ATF Proposed rule 2021R-08:
1. Focus Focus Focus
One of the easiest things for us to do when submitting a comment regarding any specific rulemaking is to get off in the weeds about something else that might be tangentially related to the current topic at hand. I most recently submitted a comment on ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 which is specifically talking about pistol braces. While it would be easy for me to also comment about 80% receivers, I should specifically avoid that because to a bureaucrat anything not specifically related to the topic at hand will just be thrown out as useless information.
So when you go to submit a comment, stay focused on the topic at hand. For ATF Proposed Rule 2021R-08 you can make specific mention of the following items regarding pistol braces:
- You can point out the vague nature of the proposed rule or the needless complexity of the rule
- You can point out that the rule is inherently subjective in nature
- You can mention that millions of pistol braces exist and this is a direct result of previous ATF rulemaking
- You can remind the ATF that the rule will disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens rather than criminals
John Hancock is probably best remembered for his extremely large and ostentatious signature on the Declaration of Independence. I know it seems really cool to remain anonymous online but when it comes to ATF rulemaking, you’ll want to make sure the ATF knows you’re a real person. Don’t use an alias, fake name, imaginary name, meme name, offensive name, or any other name that isn’t your own.
Like I said above, bureaucrats don’t tend to receive online humor well and they will more than likely throw out a comment instantly if the name SniperDragon420 shows up in the name field. You’ll also want to avoid any profanity, name-calling, or accusations against the ATF or their personnel that could be construed as personal attacks. The most effective comments will be ones that are polite, to the point, and show that you have a clear understanding of the proposed rulemaking and why you disagree with it.
3. Don’t Spam the ATF – Spread the Word Instead
The ATF does in fact review and classifies each comment they receive as being “for” or “against” their proposed rulemaking. The ATF also keeps track of how many comments are essentially cut and paste versions of the same prefab comment and while this might be an effective way to flood the ATF with the same information, it simply doesn’t look good on our part.
Leave a unique comment. Remember to keep it to the point and on the topic but make it your own. Use your own language and don’t submit several comments just to pump the numbers up. You should encourage your friends, your parents, your kids, and anyone who is even remotely interested in firearms to write their own comment. Social media is often a tool that can be weaponized to spread awareness on an important subject so you should use your access to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and all other social media platforms to encourage others to take action.
4. Some Simple Do’s and Don’ts
To sum things up in a more concise matter here is a small list of Do’s and Don’ts to help you construct your own comment to the ATF:
Do:
- Make sure you are commenting on the correct proposed ATF Regulation. (ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces”)
- Make a comment
- Write plainly
- Be polite and respectful in your comment
- Be knowledgeable in your comment
- Use facts in your comment
- Point out what you disagree with and why
- Encourage your friends and family to comment (and help them)
- Point out the logical and factual inconsistencies with the proposed rulemaking
- Point out how the law essentially criminalizes people after the ATF’s own rulemaking made it legal in the first place
- Point out that there are at the current time well over 3 million pistol braces in the country
- Resist the urge to go on a 2,000 word vocabulary-salad rambling rampage about how the founding fathers would have gone ham on the ATFs asses for even proposing such rulemaking
- Call the ATF Tyrants, Devils, Nincompoops, Idiots, Nazis, Gestapo, Dog Killers, Fools, Ron Perlman, Cockalorums, Snollygosters, Pillcocks, Ninnyhammers, Dickasses, or Douchebaggettes, etc
- Simply copy and paste a response that has already been posted – use it as a starting point for forming your own unique letter
- Bring up Waco, Ruby Ridge, The 2020 Sonic movie, or the Ken Ballew Raid
- Mention any other proposed ATF regulations aside from the one you’re currently commenting on
- Use memes or other esoteric internet culture references in your comment
- Become discouraged
A number of years ago I was sent to court to contest a traffic ticket that was handed to me in a completely improper way. Instead of cursing the officer who wrote me the citation, the bailiff who made me sit in the courtroom for 2 hours waiting for my case to be heard, or the judge who mispronounced my last name, I instead remained calm. Boring story short, I presented myself in a respectful manner, spoke plainly, presented my factual evidence and in less than 5 minutes my chargers were dismissed – easy as pie.
On the flip side of things, during my 2-hour wait in that courtroom, I saw numerous guys swaggering into court in sweatpants, speaking incoherently, getting agitated and verbose with the Judge various staff inside the courtroom, and in the end, three of them received what I believed to be far worse sentences than they would have had they simply taken the time to calmly and logically respond.
It’s times like we are now where a dispassionate and logical response can mean the difference between making a good impression or getting the hammer dropped on you.
To Read ATF Proposed rule 2021R-08, you can click HERE.
To Submit your own Comment on ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces” you can click HERE.
Related Documents regarding ATF Proposed rule 2021R-08:
- Status
