FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES* commonly referred to as “STABILIZING

[DoubleMag]

It's not so much the youtubers shooting braced pistols giving us a bad name as much as it is the people breaking the law. Ya know like killing people.....

I get the gist pf what U R saying, kinda.

OK there are XXXXX ppl on youtube vids allegedly ''shouldering'' their brace. Once? Twice? Five times a year?

Are there in fact MILLIONS of these videos, or other hard data whereas the user allegedly is shouldering ''more then occasionally?''

NO, THERE IS NOT. There ARE however, millions of these out there, NOW. So, in ratio of quantity, there are in fact VERY FEW vids showing the OCCASIONAL so-called ''alleged'' shouldering of the arm stabilizing brace.

And NO CRIMINAL makes me look bad, I am not a criminal, shucks I've never even ran for ANY Washington DC office


I TAKE NO CREDIT for any man's faults, just like I take no credit for their good. I will NOT stand up and be counted as a murderer or crime assistant; neither will I take ''credit'' for another man's successes, whether business, faith, real estate, family or otherwise.

 

[twarr1]

I remember 20 years ago when people started building AR "pistols" (and the resulting ammo bans). I thought it was pointless then, and I think it's even more so now. What is the advantage(s) if any? Practically no one fires an AR "pistol" as a pistol. So, if we're honest, the only real advantage is having a SBR without the stamp. To me, the SBR vs pistol debate is a distraction from more critical issues and a self-defeating spitting match. If you don't beleive me, watch some of the comments after this post....

 

[BigBore44]

I never advocate to not comply with the law. But I do not support unjust laws. If SBR’s and AR pistols accounted for 1/100th of the illegal shootings or homicides in the US, I could understand taking a look at them. This is nothing more than a revenue issue. Ole Biden just pledged 500,000,000 doses of the vaccine to poor countries, on our dime. Millions of people still on unemployment rather than getting back to work, on our dime. It has to be paid for somehow. If they can make gun legal owners foot part of the bill, they likely will.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Submit your comments here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...with-attached-stabilizing-braces#open-comment

Pass this link to every pro brace person you know.

Some of the criteria is still subjective and open to interpretation. I think that SB Tactical should consult with counsel and see if they can file a lawsuit against the ATF as it was indicated in a previous post that the ATF is targeting the use of SB Tactical products (also affecting others), specifically the SBA3. What’s next, will the Dept of Transportation make criteria that targets trucks that have V-6 or V-8 engines and whose manufacturer’s name starts with “F” and ends with “D” and whose models begin with “F” and have either a “1”, “5”, or “0” in it? My point is that the brace criteria is arbitrary… anyone can come up with any criteria, subjective or objective to make something illegal.

Does anyone know how many braces have been manufactured? I would estimate that it is well in the multiple millions. I think it might be a worthwhile statistic to include in comments to demonstrate that they’re extremely common and popular.

 

[rust collector]

In my eyes, the original brace approval was a well-intentioned OK for an adaptive device that would allow a physically handicapped person to use a handgun more effectively. What I suspect was never anticipated, and with 20-20 hindsight is clearly evident, was that this approval turned out to be the camel's nose under the tent. Before long, many braces were being marketed with statements or suggestions that they were legal when that specific brace had never received a clearance letter. Once again, no good deed goes unpunished. Prior attempts to manage the mischief were greeted with outrage and the ATF found itself in search of objective criteria that had never been formalized. This is an attempt to bring order to the brace review process, and to try to stuff the genie back in the bottle to some degree.

The principle of objective criteria makes sense in this context. It is long overdue. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details, and in the process of developing these criteria, the ATF would like to recover some ground that has been lost. This is done by assigning high values to certain appearance factors and setting a low threshold for denial. I will request that they reduce the points for these "evil" features and appearances, and increase the score for an allowable brace. Appearance does not make an item more deadly or efficient. Sights can be switched in an instant. Perhaps there is room for a category between braced pistol and SBR, to avoid prohibitions of the latter in some states.

If ATF makes felons of people who were told and understood that these gun were legal, retroactively, it will turn out badly for them. They are in a tough spot and I hope they realize what is at stake.

 

[GEM]

If they really are devices for folks who need them for medical reasons, the issue would be solved by a process similar to getting a handicap parking sticker. A physician fills out out a form and you buy one. Of course, the market would shrink dramatically. The solution is to get rid of the SBR nonsense - which is happening in some alternative universe.

 

[rust collector]

The solution is to get rid of the SBR nonsense - which is happening in some alternative universe.

Agreed. A short barrel rifle is no deadlier than one with 16". It may be easier to conceal, but nothing like a pistol, which can hold more than 30 rounds. It's a meaningless distinction anymore, but who will bell the cat?

 

[Sistema1927]

I "had" three AR style pistols with braces. One of them, with an SBA3, would never meet the criteria, thus the brace has been removed, the buffer tube with notches has been removed, and a pistol buffer tube has been installed with a foam cover.

The other two had Shockwave fin braces over pistol buffer tubes, and according to the worksheet, both pass muster. However...

...there is this in the text of the proposed regs: "A firearm that accumulates less than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and less than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), will generally be determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm that accumulates 4 points or more in Section II or Section III will be determined to be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder."

Who determines intent? I am the "maker" of these pistols. Does the fact that I have periodically shouldered them in the past determine that it was my intent to design them as such? Is the ATF going to hire mind readers? This is subjective beyond belief. What they are saying is "fill out our worksheet, but even if you pass, you could still fail."

As a result, both braces have come off, and foam covers have gone on. Funny thing, all three of these pistols are now smaller and easier to conceal than when they wore the braces. Also, since I have always been a "nose to the charging handle" guy, ever since Basic Training, to the point that all of my collapsible stocks are set on the shortest setting, I could still shoulder these pistols using the bare buffer tubes. The only way for ATF to eliminate this is to ban AR pistols. Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't give them any ideas.

 

[Rio Laxas]

ATF, in attempting to correct what they see as a past mistake, is unethically shifting a substanial burden onto the public. If ATF was going to insist on regulating braces to this degree, then they should not have stopped evaluating them in the first place. If ATF is concerned about the legality of a specific brace, then that is something that they should have worked directly with manufacturers to resolve, so that members of the public are not placed in legal jeopardy.

With between 10 million and 40 million braces in circulation, they had their opportunity to give input into the design of braces and they elected not to do so. To attempt this degree of regulaton now is a dereliction of their duty to protect and serve the public and is clearly done in bad faith.

 

[Demi-human]

I think their only real option now is to make SBRs an AOW and allow a free registration with each brace.

And I’ll still balk at the complete and further grabbing of my rights by a weak and fearful government.

But, at least it will absorb some of the cost of changing the buffer tube and stock and sights and grips and and hand guard and the shoulder thing that goes up…

 

[herrwalther]

Having skimmed the requirements, I would like to see a brace that would not fall under their proposed SBR redefinition. Seems like the ATF went well out of their way to include everything

 

[giggitygiggity]

Agreed. A short barrel rifle is no deadlier than one with 16". It may be easier to conceal, but nothing like a pistol, which can hold more than 30 rounds. It's a meaningless distinction anymore, but who will bell the cat?

In fact, one could argue that an SBR is less deadly than a 16”+ barrel rifle because the ft-lbs of energy delivered with a shorter barrel is less provided everything else (load, barrel maker, rifling, etc) is consistent.

Additionally, I believe that the ATF will create a safety issue should its proposal come to fruition. Specifically and regardless of whether one uses the brace as intended or shoulders it, I argue that they have far better control over the firearm through use of the brace. If people remove their braces, they will sacrifice control, creating a condition in which injury or death is more likely than it would have been if they had the control associated with that firearm in a braced format.

 

[Sistema1927]

Having skimmed the requirements, I would like to see a brace that would not fall under their proposed SBR redefinition. Seems like the ATF went well out of their way to include everything

I ran the worksheet on my Shockwave fin style braces installed on 6" pistol buffer tubes. With a < 10.5" LOP they pass both sections of the worksheet. However, even with that, there is the whole "maker intent" problem that I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[Sistema1927]

In fact, one could argue that an SBR is less deadly than a 16”+ barrel rifle because the ft-lbs of energy delivered with a shorter barrel is less provided everything else (load, barrel maker, rifling, etc) is consistent.

Additionally, I believe that the ATF will create a safety issue should its proposal come to fruition. Specifically and regardless of whether one uses the brace as intended or shoulders it, I argue that they have far better control over the firearm through use of the brace. If people remove their braces, they will sacrifice control, creating a condition in which injury or death is more likely than it would have been if they had the control associated with that firearm in a braced format.

Yes, Judge Benitez argued in his Miller v. Bonta decision that more accurate weapons in the hands of citizens is a benefit instead of a liability as some argue when wanting to ban "assault weapons":

"The mechanical design features that identify a rifle as a California “assault weapon,” it is argued, tend to help a person shoot the rifle more accurately under pressure. The Plaintiffs make the point that this is a better condition for all lawful uses, i.e., a more accurate gun is better for everyone. After all, responsible gun-owners worry about the ending point of every round fired. If shooting in self-defense, a home defender wants every round to hit only attackers."

"In the terrible mass shooting context, which fortunately is a rare event, reducing the number of innocent victims is the State’s goal, although it is not at all clear that a less accurate rifle would reduce the number of victims. A less accurate rifle in the hands of a mass shooter may very well result in different victims, but not necessarily less victims. On the other hand, in the self-defense context, which seems to be more common, taking accurate shots at attackers is vitally important for the innocent victim. While the state ought to protect its residents against victimization by a mass shooter, it ought also to protect its residents against victimization by home-invading criminals."

 

[herrwalther]

I ran the worksheet on my Shockwave fin style braces installed on 6" pistol buffer tubes. With a < 10.5" LOP they pass both sections of the worksheet. However, even with that, there is the whole "maker intent" problem that I mentioned in an earlier post.

I tallied up my AR pistol as built. Just without measuring the weight and length. My build scores 10 points total which would make it an SBR under the new rule. Spec points are BS designed to make grey areas. Too many points one way or another and you are a felon. Take this one for example "Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering." A standard KAK tube has indentations along the underside to adjust where the blade itself goes. But you need an Allen wrench to adjust the blade. So based solely on interpretation that is two points in your favor or against you, depending on how "readily" you can telescope the stock.

With anti-gun politicians in all areas of government, I get the feeling my AR pistol will be a pile of parts before the next election.

 

[James Fonteneaux]

I remember 20 years ago when people started building AR "pistols" (and the resulting ammo bans). I thought it was pointless then, and I think it's even more so now. What is the advantage(s) if any? Practically no one fires an AR "pistol" as a pistol. So, if we're honest, the only real advantage is having a SBR without the stamp. To me, the SBR vs pistol debate is a distraction from more critical issues and a self-defeating spitting match. If you don't beleive me, watch some of the comments after this post....

As a resident of your state, AFAIK, it is illegal to carry a rifle with a loaded magazine in your car. You could, however carry a "pistol" with a loaded large magazine of rifle ammo in your car legally. Are you likely to accurately hit your target with it (unmodified tube, not brace)? Maybe. But I have personally seen and made 100 yard shots with such a LEGAL device. So if it is LEGAL, why not carry it in your car? To me, especially in locales that favor "defunding the police" I'd like as much firepower as I can LEGALLY carry. This is the advantage to me, as I want the maximum number of rounds LEGALLY available to diffuse a situation should the need arise.

 

[DoubleMag]

I got it! I got it!

They landed on the designation of 4 (four), by bouncing a lil rubber ball, and picking up jacks. Average it between 5 line/ field staffers as the bouncers (pencil pushers/ office staff are EXPERT at this time wasting exercise lol , could have picked up 6, 8, or more lol) and, voila! you have the number.

So, in your letters to BOG DOWN THE ATF , please include this as evidence. No seriously, I just described what ''arbitrary'' means

BOG DOWN...doesn't that just have a lovely sound to it? LoL

REMEMBER...the BEST way to dodge a bullet is if...it never leaves the opponents barrel

 

[DoubleMag]

IT"S PUBLISHED IN THE REGISTER as of yesterday gents & gems

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...arms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces.890248/


Remember; bog, bog, and bog it some more haha

 

[dogtown tom]

As a resident of your state, AFAIK, it is illegal to carry a rifle with a loaded magazine in your car.

No Texas law prohibits a loaded firearm of any type in a vehicle.
-Loaded handguns may be carried concealed on the person in a vehicle without a License To Carry (until Constitutional Carry becomes effective an LTC is needed once you exit the vehicle).
-Loaded handguns may be carried inside a vehicle as long as they are not in plain view....ie they must be covered or concealed.
-Loaded rifles and shotguns can be carried down Main St as long as not carried in a manner calculated to cause alarm. (as in don't point it at someone)

 

[kwguy]

‘The whole “brace” thing was made to legally subvert a stupid law. That law is idiotic. Defending a dumb or unconstitutional law just because it exists makes no sense, and if one can find a legal way around it, then good!

It’s like condemning the Underground Railroad because it “subverted” the Laws of slavery in southern states. So. What. And that wasn’t even “legal” by the letter of the laws at the time. Braces are (or...were?).

 

[old lady new shooter]

So, are there any statistics on how many of these weapons are used in mass shootings or criminal activity in general? That might be a useful piece of information for any law that potentially restricts a Constitutional right.

Yesterday I saw Bosco and Colion Noir discussing this and they said there have been TWO cases total. BATFE admits there are 3 million people who own AR pistols but Bosco said that's ridiculous, his company alone has sold several multiples of that number.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm not exactly a small dude myself LOL. Personally I don't much care about the pistol/rifle/SBR thing all that much, however it gets a bit frustrating when people play the game of putting rifles into the handgun category and end up creating excuses for government officials to apply existing laws to things which were specifically excluded when written like the bans some rifle ammunition we have already experienced on small scale.

We work hard to keep new laws from being enacted. Unfortunately there are a lot of regulations already on the books with which we are stuck. Anti-gunners are perfectly happy to hold up whatever item someone shoehorned into a category to pillory all guns while gleefully repeating our mantra of enforcing the existing rules. The general public hears the word handgun and we all know exactly what they likely think it means - revolver, duty pistol, etc. When someone on TV holds up what looks like a big military rifle and says "see what these whackadoodles are calling a pistol" you have pretty much no leg to stand on trying to tell folks otherwise. If anything it really hurts our cause with people who are otherwise ambivalent.

Colion Noir recently said short-barreled rifles shouldn't be NFA in the first place, they make excellent home defense weapons. These days when mobs run whole neighborhoods and in some cases break into homes, while police are unavailable because they've been defunded, your old six-shooter isn't gonna cut it.

 

[old lady new shooter]

View attachment 1003567

Look!

A "disabled veteran..."

...firing a pistol...

...using the isosceles stance!

When firing my revolvers (I don't own any semi-auto handguns) two-handed I always use the isosceles stance. Weaver was taught at the first class I attended but it was impossible for me, I have back problems. One-handed I stand sideways like people used to do many years ago.

 

[old lady new shooter]

View attachment 1003567

Look!

A "disabled veteran..."

...firing a pistol...

...using the isosceles stance!

I just realized "isosceles" was supposed to be a joke, ergo the red triangle.

 

[Elkins45]

Having skimmed the requirements, I would like to see a brace that would not fall under their proposed SBR redefinition. Seems like the ATF went well out of their way to include everything

Wouldn’t the original Sig strapped cuff model come in at less than four points?