The Brace Ban is Here

[Sebastian the Ibis]

The ATF published their notice in the Federal Register today of their intent to regulate pistol braces.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ing-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces#addresses

This is the first step to ban braces administratively as regulations. However, the ATF must consider and respond to all public comments that they receive before the regulations can be effective. So SUBMIT COMMENTS!!! Explain your thoughts and concerns. The ATF must respond to every comment before this can be effective.

Read the proposal at the link above, and submit comments.

You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF 2020R-10, by any of the following methods—

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R-10.
• Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number (ATF 2020R-10). 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.

 

[Demi-human]

Strange this isn’t in General Discussions, since they aren’t NFA yet, or ever will be by the sounds of it.

So, let’s be honest, just a way to make more money for the Feds. They saw they were losing $200 every time a pistol sold. And to get it back, they just turn everyone into criminals.

“Oh, but if you placate us we will expedite the payment and paperwork.”

...as I wait, STILL, for a PAID emailed Form 1, from July...

I’ll send a letter. Fat lot of good it will do...

 

[PzGren]

"Weight and Length. The weight and length of the firearm used with the stabilizing brace. A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun."


Laws should be a little bit clearer and have a higher level of objectivity. Terms such as "is likely to be considered" have nothing to do in legislation.
Will a weight lifter, who can fire an AK pistol effectively from a one handed hold and can demonstrate that, be treated differently from a frail old lady?

 

[MachIVshooter]

Strange this isn’t in General Discussions, since they aren’t NFA yet, or ever will be by the sounds of it.

So, let’s be honest, just a way to make more money for the Feds. They saw they were losing $200 every time a pistol sold. And to get it back, they just turn everyone into criminals.

“Oh, but if you placate us we will expedite the payment and paperwork.”

There will be a retroactive amnesty with tax free SBR registration for those who don't wish to use one of the four other options to stay legal with an affected brace.

I don't like it, but the writing has been on the wall for some time. Manufacturers and end users alike kept pushing it with them, making intent and actual use more than a little obvious.

 

[WestKentucky]

I have been saying it for a while now, the gun community has done this one to themselves. Stocked pistols are NFA, so the gun community took a “not a stock” and used it as a stock. Same thing with bumpstocks. FA is NFA but we can make a jiggler that makes a semiauto act like FA and try to be ok for a while.

 

[Demi-human]

Yes, we know. But, maybe it’s my rebellious streak or the part of me that doesn’t need supervision anymore, when laws are ridiculous, erroneous and oppressive it’s is our nature to find ways “around it”. Not as Americans, as humans.

When the bridge is out, I find another way across the river.

It is the government who keeps burning the bridges...

 

[Elkins45]

There will be a retroactive amnesty with tax free SBR registration for those who don't wish to use one of the four other options to stay legal with an affected brace.

I don't like it, but the writing has been on the wall for some time. Manufacturers and end users alike kept pushing it with them, making intent and actual use more than a little obvious.

Four other options? Educate me please.

SBR it or:

1. remove the brace
2. make it a 16”+ rifle
3. sell or destroy it
4. ?

The one silver lining is that existing owners will get a free SBR stamp and can then remove those silly braces and add a proper stock...unless they live in a non-NFA state. Sucks for them for sure.

 

[earlthegoat2]

I avoided rifle pistols for this very reason but am I reading it right that there will be some kind of amnesty to get a free SBR? In that case, I may just buy what I need to buy to get that.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

I knew this time would come.

like the bump stocks, this was skirting way too close to the edge of the law. The crackdown was imminent.

 

[George P]

I have been saying it for a while now, the gun community has done this one to themselves. Stocked pistols are NFA, so the gun community took a “not a stock” and used it as a stock. Same thing with bumpstocks. FA is NFA but we can make a jiggler that makes a semiauto act like FA and try to be ok for a while.

Yep, I have no dog in this fight, but every video you watch never shows anyone using it as an arm brace but as some form of shoulder stock.

 

[AJC1]

This is a path to registration, cloaked in oppressive "law clarification"

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I knew this time would come.

like the bump stocks, this was skirting way too close to the edge of the law. The crackdown was imminent.

The timing is no accident.

Much like the "raid" on Polymer80, this is ATF bureaucrats trying to get noticed by and ingraciate themselves to the incoming regime, hoping for advancement.

 

[JCooperfan1911]

The timing is no accident.

Much like the "raid" on Polymer80, this is ATF bureaucrats trying to get noticed by and ingraciate themselves to the incoming regime, hoping for advancement.

sadly ammo is being driven up because of this

 

[George P]

No, ammo is being driven up because folks are hoarding and in a panic.

 

[MachIVshooter]

This is a path to registration, cloaked in oppressive "law clarification"

In many, perhaps most, instances, I would tend to agree.

That is not the case with this one.

You have five options to stay legal with an affected brace. Only one of those involves registration. Two of them are not something anyone in their right mind would take. The other two both outline a means of keeping the weapon without any ATF involvement.

Like I said above, I don't like it. SBR shouldn't be a thing. NFA shouldn't even exist. But it does, ATF is the agency tasked with enforcing it, and the logic, the criteria for this determination is really quite sound, albeit a bit subjective. No new laws were created, ATF can't do that. What they can do, and are required to do as the regulatory agency, is evaluate designs and make a determination of whether or not they are firearms and, if so, whether they are title I or title II. Initially, braces were determined to be a pistol accessory which did not change the status of handguns. But manufacturers kept making "braces" that were more and more a stock and never submitting them for evaluation, and consumers overwhelmingly made it clear to the world that they were using them as stocks. It became a case of "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...."

Furthermore, foolish people kept making comparisons of braced pistols and SBRs saying that they were essentially the same. The reason for this was ostensibly to point out that SBRs shouldn't be regulated, which I (we) of course agree with. But it was a very misguided effort, because public opinion has no bearing on the law's validity and very little (if any) on enforcement. So what they really accomplished with their short-sightedness and lack of understanding was pointing out that a braced pistol is functionally identical to the regulated SBR and therefore falls under the purview of NFA.Good job, guys.

 

[AJC1]

In many, perhaps most, instances, I would tend to agree.

That is not the case with this one.

You have five options to stay legal with an affected brace. Only one of those involves registration. Two of them are not something anyone in their right mind would take. The other two both outline a means of keeping the weapon without any ATF involvement.

Like I said above, I don't like it. SBR shouldn't be a thing. NFA shouldn't even exist. But it does, ATF is the agency tasked with enforcing it, and the logic, the criteria for this determination is really quite sound, albeit a bit subjective. No new laws were created, ATF can't do that. What they can do, and are required to do as the regulatory agency, is evaluate designs and make a determination of whether or not they are firearms and, if so, whether they are title I or title II. Initially, braces were determined to be a pistol accessory which did not change the status of handguns. But manufacturers kept making "braces" that were more and more a stock and never submitting them for evaluation, and consumers overwhelmingly made it clear to the world that they were using them as stocks. It became a case of "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,...."

Furthermore, foolish people kept making comparisons of braced pistols and SBRs saying that they were essentially the same. The reason for this was ostensibly to point out that SBRs shouldn't be regulated, which I (we) of course agree with. But it was a very misguided effort, because public opinion has no bearing on the law's validity and very little (if any) on enforcement. So what they really accomplished with their short-sightedness and lack of understanding was pointing out that a braced pistol is functionally identical to the regulated SBR and therefore falls under the purview of NFA.Good job, guys.

I dont do any ar stuff at all and trying to just stay knowledgeable about what's happening. Just because it doesn't effect me directly dosen't keep me out of the fights for our rights.

 

[giggitygiggity]

To be clear, I have yet to see anywhere that braces themselves will be banned. The title of this thread and many YouTube videos and the like suggest that the BATFE is outlawing braces themselves. While I understand that the BATFE’s recent and unconstitutional actions are designed to undermine the point of owning a brace, I do not know of any intent to either cease the manufacture, sale, or possession of braces.

The letter explains that braced firearms, in the opinion of the BATFE, may be subject to NFA registration depending on the firearm’s configuration. However, I am not aware of any effort to ban braces since you could still use it on rifles with 16”+ barrels.

Nonetheless, the BATFE’s recent is concerning and the letter warrants replies as well as letters from us to our Congressmen and Senators to curb the overreach and politicizing of the BATFE.

Also, I seriously think that the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) organization should file a lawsuit against the BATFE for attempting to regulate firearms outfitted with devices intended to assist disabled persons (originally a disabled veteran) with firing weapons one-handed. If anyone on here is part of DAV, I think such a suit would bring a tremendous amount of unwanted attention towards the BATFE. It would certainly not be good for the BATFE if the public hears that the BATFE is being sued for scrutinizing firearms outfitted with devices designed to help the disabled.

 

[hso]

Strange this isn’t in General Discussions,

Activism thread has guidance.

 

[MachIVshooter]

To be clear, I have yet to see anywhere that braces themselves will be banned. The title of this thread and many YouTube videos and the like suggest that the BATFE is outlawing braces themselves. While I understand that the BATFE’s recent and unconstitutional actions are designed to undermine the point of owning a brace, I do not know of any intent to either cease the manufacture, sale, or possession of braces.

The letter explains that braced firearms, in the opinion of the BATFE, may be subject to NFA registration depending on the firearm’s configuration. However, I am not aware of any effort to ban braces since you could still use it on rifles with 16”+ barrels.

This is accurate in my interpretation. Nothing in the Federal Register document contains language about banning braces, nor does it say that braces themselves or all braced pistols will fall under the purview of NFA. It seems that some braces when attached to a short barreled firearm will, by their addition, make that firearm a short barreled rifle or shotgun. Installation of other braces may not change the weapon's classification by themselves, but may be one of the determining factors in conjunction with other attributes or accessories. Of course, that's where it gets clear as mud, so the onus is ATFs to author clear guidance on which braces and configurations will or won't make a firearm subject to NFA.

Inevitable ADA/DAV challenges pretty well preclude making all braced pistols NFA unless they're wanting an absolute quagmire of lawsuits, so some braces and configurations will almost certainly remain classified as pistols. But in light of that, of the original brace design, intent and subsequent approval, we can probably expect a modification or retraction of the 2017 "incidental contact" ruling, use of a brace as a stock making it an NFA item.

The ambiguity is probably the best grounds on which to fight it, but for most brace owner's purposes, if the actual use is a major determining factor (or the determining factor), there will be little point in having one. For able-bodied people, using most of these braces as intended makes about as much sense as wearing glasses with perfect vision. The only one I actually find helpful for one-handed shooting is the Shockwave Blade.

 

[DocRock]

Give them an inch and they will be kicking in the door at 0330 to take you away. Fight everything, no matter whether it impacts you or not.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Fight everything, no matter whether it impacts you or not.

Goes without saying.

Give them an inch and they will be kicking in the door at 0330 to take you away.

It's rarely such theatrics. Most private citizens who have unregistered NFA items don't ever get caught. Those who do but weren't engaged in other criminal activity are generally contacted, arrested quietly, charged, given a court date and bonded out. Very often they serve little if any time. Sometimes it's nothing more than seizure of the contraband and a stern warning. Yes, you could face up to 10 years & $100K fine per violation, but I've never heard of an NFA violation by itself resulting in anywhere near the maximum. I don't recommend gambling with it, of course, but that's the reality.

Now, if you're manufacturing M-16s and selling them to the local gang bangers, yeah, you're gonna get hit hard.

 

[DocRock]

Goes without saying.



It's rarely such theatrics. Most private citizens who have unregistered NFA items don't ever get caught. Those who do but weren't engaged in other criminal activity are generally contacted, arrested quietly, charged, given a court date and bonded out. Very often they serve little if any time. Sometimes it's nothing more than seizure of the contraband and a stern warning. Yes, you could face up to 10 years & $100K fine per violation, but I've never heard of an NFA violation by itself resulting in anywhere near the maximum. I don't recommend gambling with it, of course, but that's the reality.

Now, if you're manufacturing M-16s and selling them to the local gang bangers, yeah, you're gonna get hit hard.

It was meant in a broader context. Every infringement on the rights of the people needs to be fought as if the next step is the trucks outside at 0330. The enemies of individual liberty are relentless, so those who value their liberty must be implacable.

 

[DoubleMag]

Figured there would be comments in this Forum. I was right! FYI link to Activism thread, which within it is linked a Legal thread...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...objective-factors-open-comment-period.880031/

It is not strange that this topic has naturally spread throughout several various forums in such a well moderated website as THR. Because it affects MORE then just a brace, or barrel length. Other etc. IMHO and if reading the Friday document dump correctly, the primary issue is a non-NFA item that has existed for a VERY long time that being the AR-15 pistol platform itself. Such as, plain jane receiver, 10'' barrel, shorter buffer tube of different size so as to not accept a traditional AR stock. I believe they (Fed) want to eliminate via subjective rulings, the AR-15 pistol itself.

And then therefore the groundwork with extreme minor word changes, regular AR-15s

Anyway, there's the link. ''Comment early, comment often'' // works for voting (LoL)

 

[Havok7416]

Figured there would be comments in this Forum. I was right! FYI link to Activism thread, which within it is linked a Legal thread...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...objective-factors-open-comment-period.880031/

It is not strange that this topic has naturally spread throughout several various forums in such a well moderated website as THR. Because it affects MORE then just a brace, or barrel length. Other etc. IMHO and if reading the Friday document dump, the primary issue is a non-NFA item that has existed for a VERY long time that being the AR-15 pistol platform itself. Such as, plain jane receiver, 10'' barrel, shorter buffer tube of different size so as to not accept a traditional AR stock. I believe they (Fed) want to eliminate via subjective rulings, the AR-15 pistol itself.

And then therefore the groundwork with extreme minor word changes, regular AR-15s

Anyway, there's the link. ''Comment early, comment often'' // works for voting (LoL)

This covers a lot of non-AR guns as well. Any number of PCCs that are out may be affected. I haven't measured my Ruger PC Charger but I'm pretty sure it's too short.

 

[MachIVshooter]

C&P from my post on another board:


I've given this matter a considerable amount of thought over the last day, and I have an idea on the best approach for opposition in the public commenting forum.

We have been down this road many times, and the tactics have been consistently ineffective. Disingenuous arguments and beating the "shall not be infringed" drum gets us nowhere, just disregarded.

Instead, let's try a multi-prong affirmative defense.


Part 1, be intellectually honest about what we're dealing with in this instance. We can't honestly or effectively deny how these braces are being commonly used, or that some of them have really been designed that way to a great degree. So we own it, and then get on to the next parts about why that's not a problem.

Part 2, a brief recap of how SBR ended up being NFA in the first place, that we know it is vestigial language from the bill which ultimately became NFA that was originally authored to include handguns. Handguns were struck last minute to get the votes for passage, but the now-pointless language for short barreled long guns remained.

Part 3, the "so what?" argument, the appeal to common sense. Has there been a rash of violent crime with braced pistols? And to that end, does removing the brace, installing a longer barrel or registering them make the United States safer in any way? If the answers are no and no, why go to the trouble of redefining these accessories/firearms? Why clutter the registry with tax-free registrations and burden law abiding people with having to either throw away their investment, modify something that has been legal up to this point, or force them to go get fingerprint cards & engrave their firearms?

And finally part 4, the appeal to humanity and the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness. Though nothing in the determination and subsequent NFA regulation would actually outlaw braces, it is almost a de facto ban, because nobody will bother with them if the process by which they can be legally used is the same as a real stock. That means the companies who manufacture them will have an insurmountable drop in revenue, and will thus close, putting business owners and employees out of work (and at time when we can least afford it). The few folks here in the US who would legitimately use them as arm braces certainly won't be buying enough for the companies to survive, and there's no other market for their product.



Take that for what it's worth, but I think those points (in your own vernacular, of course) are the best shot we have at shutting this push down. ATF is technically correct in their evaluation, but that doesn't make the reclassification a good idea or worthwhile.