ATF Rule on Braces Published Jan 31, 2023

[rust collector]

I am attaching a link to the ATF presentation on the new rule. Sound is horrible, so I will try to find an alternative source. My reason for linking is that according to Sootch and Robbie Wheaton, the ATF backed away from the pistol receiver extention only, but listen and learn. This discussion is heard in the FAQ section starting around minute 24.

 

[rust collector]

Here is a link to the powerpoint deck without the audio: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/finalrule2021r-08f508pdf/download

Here is the ATF resource site relating to this rule. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

 

[dogtown tom]

I eagerly await seeing satellite photos of the gigantic new federal detention camps that are being built to house the millions of new felons caught in this trap.

Most USAO's don't prosecute federal gun crimes unless its seen as a way to gain leverage on other crimes, or to set an example.
The best example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States . Bruce Abramski was suspected of a series of bank robberies, but only prosecuted for lying on the Form 4473. State authorities didn't have enough evidence to indict on the bank robberies, but did on the firearm violation.

As far as making an example: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461 Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler will never own or possess a gun again.

I keep trying to find someone who will make a cash bet with me that 100,000 or more Americans (out of potentially millions) will be convicted of a felony for their Form 1 pistol brace applications. So far I’ve gotten no takers.

Maybe because submitting a Form 1 isn't a felony is my guess.

 

[dogtown tom]

i think i,ll just take the brace off and destroy it and keep my firearm as a pistol.

Do you have an AR rifle? Then don't destroy that arm brace. It's perfectly legal to attach an arm brace to a rifle.

 

[eastbank]

no, a pap 92pv ak47. it came with a century international arms arm brace.

 

[illinoisburt]

Do you have an AR rifle? Then don't destroy that arm brace. It's perfectly legal to attach an arm brace to a rifle.

Ah but no one really wants a brace as a stock in their rifle. They accepted an inferior uncomfortable 'stock' in a wink-n-nod attempt at an unregistered SBR. It was always a bit of gamesmanship hence the fact that people paired the braced pistol with short eye relief rifle sights and forward grips for 2 handed operation. There is no one in our community who doesn't know it's true.

 

[rust collector]

A look at some of the "minimalist" AR stock designs indicates that a brace would be an upgrade. What you call gamesmanship may just have been taking advantage of an opportunity that was available for a number of years. I am more inclined to refer to the NFA treatment of short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns as gamesmanship.

 

[Elkins45]

Here you go!!!

change the race a little, reasons, crime, … Happened before, will
happen again. But this time, you going a free man or a sheep
View attachment 1130756

View attachment 1130757

View attachment 1130758

If you really think there is an equivalence here then we really have nothing left to talk about.

I notice you didn’t choose to accept my bet.

Maybe because submitting a Form 1 isn't a felony is my guess.

My comment was specifically in reference to the people who are asserting that submitting a Form 1 is a trap to get you to admit you’re already a felon in possession of an illegal SBR. Like the person quoted above.

 

[BreechFace]

A look at some of the "minimalist" AR stock designs indicates that a brace would be an upgrade. What you call gamesmanship may just have been taking advantage of an opportunity that was available for a number of years. I am more inclined to refer to the NFA treatment of short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns as gamesmanship.

Agreed.

 

[Mark_Mark]

If you really think there is an equivalence here then we really have nothing left to talk about.

I notice you didn’t choose to accept my bet.



My comment was specifically in reference to the people who are asserting that submitting a Form 1 is a trap to get you to admit you’re already a felon in possession of an illegal SBR. Like the person quoted above.

How does it not equate? You don’t think the government would ever lock up American people in mass. ^ ^ ^ well there is a example. I’m not licking any boots bro! and your bet is silly.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ah but no one really wants a brace as a stock in their rifle. They accepted an inferior uncomfortable 'stock' in a wink-n-nod attempt at an unregistered SBR. It was always a bit of gamesmanship hence the fact that people paired the braced pistol with short eye relief rifle sights and forward grips for 2 handed operation. There is no one in our community who doesn't know it's true.

We know that.
I mentioned that to eastby so he wouldn't feel the need to destroy or trash his arm brace.

 

[dogtown tom]

no, a pap 92pv ak47. it came with a century international arms arm brace.

Will that arm brace work with any other rifle you own?
If so, keep it.
If not, sell it.

 

[dogtown tom]

....My comment was specifically in reference to the people who are asserting that submitting a Form 1 is a trap to get you to admit you’re already a felon in possession of an illegal SBR. Like the person quoted above.

You mean the people that don't understand entrapment?
Or those who buy Reynolds Wrap by the pallet?

 

[dogtown tom]

How does it not equate? You don’t think the government would ever lock up American people in mass. ^ ^ ^ well there is a example. I’m not licking any boots bro! and your bet is silly.

You need to stop before you dig your hole any deeper.

 

[old lady new shooter]

you aren't the first person to do this.

Not me, FlSwampRat.

 

[Elkins45]

How does it not equate? You don’t think the government would ever lock up American people in mass. ^ ^ ^ well there is an example. I’m not licking any boots bro! and your bet is silly.

We shall see soon enough.

 

[WiTom]

Money out the door, just destroy it... why is there not a buyback through all of this. No matter what you think of these, they were legal to buy, and now the rules have changed, and now small businesses, people, everyone is out, and the govt. now, sets a presidents that they no longer have to create a buyback program any longer, just an EO and change the law and forget trying to make anything right, as money, in the the govt. hands, is made out of thin air.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Money out the door, just destroy it... why is there not a buyback through all of this. No matter what you think of these, they were legal to buy, and now the rules have changed, and now small businesses, people, everyone is out, and the govt. now, sets a presidents that they no longer have to create a buyback program any longer, just an EO and change the law and forget trying to make anything right, as money, in the the govt. hands, is made out of thin air.

100%! give it time, will be court for years!

 

[BreechFace]

Money out the door, just destroy it... why is there not a buyback through all of this. No matter what you think of these, they were legal to buy, and now the rules have changed, and now small businesses, people, everyone is out, and the govt. now, sets a presidents that they no longer have to create a buyback program any longer, just an EO and change the law and forget trying to make anything right, as money, in the the govt. hands, is made out of thin air.

It's because they say, "we are not outlawing pistol braces," you just need to file a "free" Form 1 and register your firearm then go ahead and use your pistol brace after approval and registration of your previously unknown to the government firearm.

Except that doesn't work for states that don't allow SBR's. There you are just SOL.

 

[JohnKSa]

They are not outlawing stabilizing braces. If they wanted to do that, they could have with just one sentence. The reason the rule is so complicated is because they are trying to keep ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols legal while also remaining consistent with the definitions in the NFA.

 

[rust collector]

The ATF says it does not regulate equipment or attachments, in the same breath as reminding us that possession of pistol and a separate brace may constitute constructive possess based upon facts they do not specify. It is a fascinating exercise, but some will be caught out.

 

[old lady new shooter]

They are not outlawing stabilizing braces. If they wanted to do that, they could have with just one sentence. The reason the rule is so complicated is because they are trying to keep ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols legal while also remaining consistent with the definitions in the NFA.

They published a lot of photos of now-illegal combinations, but I didn't see any of still-allowable combinations. Can you give us some examples of pistol + brace combinations that they have said are OK under their new rule? Preferably with photos?

 

[berettaprofessor]

The reason the rule is so complicated is because they are trying to keep ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols legal while also remaining consistent with the definitions in the NFA

Whatever you're smoking, if you can make and sell edibles of it, you'd make a fortune!

 

[JohnKSa]

They published a lot of photos of now-illegal combinations, but I didn't see any of still-allowable combinations. Can you give us some examples of pistol + brace combinations that they have said are OK under their new rule? Preferably with photos?

The document is about defining SBRs, not about making a list of items that are unregulated.

The bottom line is that if you have a pistol that has a brace on it to make it easier to shoot one-handed, and the resulting firearm doesn't have any "rifle-like" features (which the document describes in detail), you're good. On the other hand, if you put a brace on a firearm so you can shoot it from the shoulder (without having to register an SBR), and the resulting firearm has rifle-like features (i.e. a scope with eye-relief that prevents it from being used one-handed like a conventional pistol, an overall length comparable to rifles of generally similar design, texturing on the back of the brace like what is seen on buttstocks, or weight comparable to rifles of generally similar design, etc., etc., ~300pp, etc., etc.), then you should take one of the options provided in the document.

Whatever you're smoking...

There's literally hundreds of pages of explanatory material provided. If you think it all boils down to: "Stabilizing braces are illegal." then that simplifies things considerably for you and also makes it abundantly clear how you should proceed. You should consider yourself fortunate to have so deftly avoided the confusion that others are troubled with.

 

[JohnKSa]

I am more inclined to refer to the NFA treatment of short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns as gamesmanship.

Like it or not (and I don't) the NFA has been law for almost 90 years. I don't like how it was passed, or how it was supported when it was challenged, but that's all water long gone under a bridge--in fact the bridge doesn't even exist any more. This rule will be judged on the basis of whether it's consistent with the NFA and that's where the conversation needs to start if it's going to be productive. There can be no useful discussion about this topic except in that context as long as the NFA remains unchanged.