ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

Kharn · Jun 14, 2021

MigraineMan said:
Worked through a Form 4999 "scoring" exercise this weekend. Documented the process with a video over on the Patriot Picket FaceBook page.

It needs a cash register cha-ching whenever there's a point and running total at the bottom.

MigraineMan · Jun 14, 2021

Kharn said:
It needs a cash register cha-ching whenever there's a point and running total at the bottom.

Could certainly do a game-show themed version.

Kharn · Jun 14, 2021

Also read the "supporting and related information file the ATF posted.

One part:

439.2 Alternative 1—No change alternative.Individuals request that there be no change made. This alternative has no costs or benefits because it is maintaining the existing status quo. This alternative was considered and not implemented becausethe NFA requires regulation on certain types of firearms above what is required under the GCA. Currently, persons couldbe in possession of firearms regulated under the NFA without complying withNFA requirements.

9.3Alternative 2—Simple Criteria.This alternative would provide very short and simple parameters in terms of defining a“stabilizing brace”or a stock, such as by lengthonly. This alternative would be easy for the public to read and understand. Where this was feasible, ATF has incorporated these simple and easy to follow parameters. ATF considered and declined this alternative, because while the costs are the same as the proposed rule and it would make it easier for persons to understand and comply with the regulation, it would not cover all the different types of“stabilizing braces” and similar accessories currently available.

9.4 Alternative 3—Grandfather all existing firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace.”This alternative would grandfather all existing firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace.”This alternative is problematic in that manufacturers could continue to produce firearms with “stabilizing braces”that are actually “rifles” under the statutory definition and subject to the NFAand market them as being grandfathered andtherefore,not subject to the same regulation. This could potentially pose an enforcement issue that may not be resolved for years if not decades.

9.5Alternative 4—Guidance Documents.This alternative would publish a guidance document instead of a rulemaking. While this alternative minimizes costbecausecompliance inthis scenario would be voluntary, it does not meet the objectives outlined in this proposed rule as guidance documentsdo not have the same force and effect of a regulation. Guidance documents do not in and of themselves impose binding legal obligations.This would pose an enforcement issue.Moreover, issuing aproposed rule invites comments from the public, creating greater transparency and notice.

9.6Alternative 5—Forgivenessof the NFA tax.This alternative would allow individuals and entities that currently have firearms with attached “stabilizing braces” to apply under the NFA without paying the $200 making tax.In this scenario, the societal costs would be the same except there would be no transfer payment. Similar to the proposed rule, the bulk of this cost would be the forgone future revenue and the loss in property for individuals not applying under the NFA.33This scenario was rejected because “stabilizing braces” are not serialized and an individual or entity could merely register all firearms possessed with the intent of later obtaining a “stabilizing brace.” Further, although used on a particular weapon, an individual might register all pistols as SBRs and then attempt to utilize other stocks on these firearms. ATF requests additional comments about the feasibility of providing tax forgiveness. ATF also request information on how this would affect your decision to usethis scenario under this proposed rule.

outrider58 · Jun 14, 2021

Hey, get rid of Merryland's ridiculous 29" rule and I'll get rid of my only brace. It's as simple as that for me.

TexDefender · Jun 15, 2021

Anyone have a good rebuttal for this? Seems we would be better to spend are energy rebutting it.

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk

Kharn · Jun 15, 2021

Pick a page, paragraph, or sentence and submit a comment discussing how ATF is completely wrong about it.

No profanity, no "cold dead hands," just state facts. You share a pistol with your wife and her arms are shorter than yours so you need an adjustable brace, you shoot your pistol supported so a bipod isn't appropriate for adding points, you need a sling point on the brace ("stock like features" as they call it) for trekking while hunting coyotes, you know someone that shot their finger off because they didn't have a hand stop and they're an important safety component, etc.

Bountied · Jun 15, 2021

Some one will just come up with an AR pistol that can pass the test and that'll be the new normal. I know the SBA3 brace probably won't work due to it's stock like features, the elastic Velcro, and the lack of ability to fully wrap around your arm. Oh well, looks like I'll be putting my Sig brace back on... it seems to pass, after I remove the iron sights and the hand stop.

Kharn · Jun 15, 2021

First shot: 141 House Republicans challenge ATF tax, registration of AR pistols

Kharn · Jun 15, 2021

Bountied said:
Some one will just come up with an AR pistol that can pass the test and that'll be the new normal. I know the SBA3 brace probably won't work due to it's stock like features, the elastic Velcro, and the lack of ability to fully wrap around your arm. Oh well, looks like I'll be putting my Sig brace back on... it seems to pass, after I remove the iron sights and the hand stop.

In the 70+ page document, the SBA3 is specifically called out as non-compliant.

Put in a comment about how much the SBA3 cost you and why you used it vs the Sig Brace.

Mike OTDP · Jun 15, 2021

I think the big argument is ex post facto lawmaking. People bought braced pistols in good faith, having been informed that this was legal. Now ATF wants to change their interpertation of the law and instantly transform law-abiding citizens into felons subject to a 10-year prison sentence...all by regulatory fiat.

On top of which there is the Maryland Special...aka entrapment. ATF won't approve an SBR with a length under 29 inches...and a lot of non-AR-platform braced pistols won't make that limit. And somehow I don't see ATF paying compensation.

Bountied · Jun 15, 2021

Kharn said:
In the 70+ page document, the SBA3 is specifically called out as non-compliant.

Put in a comment about how much the SBA3 cost you and why you used it vs the Sig Brace.

Well I don't want to go on the record but, the main reason I went with the SB over the Sig is, the SBA3 is it's adjustable, Looks better, comes in different colors, has a QD sling swivel built in. I think I paid $125 for it

MigraineMan · Jun 15, 2021

Comments are available to read. Page has been up 5 days, and already has over 36k comments. That's encouraging.

Doctor_M · Jun 15, 2021

Have my comments drafted and will submit them tomorrow.

Doctor_M · Jun 16, 2021

Your comment was submitted successfully!
Comment Tracking Number: kpz-ftk1-t6l4

Over 44,000 comments as of this morning.

Doctor_M · Jun 16, 2021

I've had to review public comments on Federal NEPA documents for DOD land development, and I can tell you, it is no fun. I feel sorry for the poor contractors that are going to have to wade through all of these.

Allen65 · Jun 16, 2021

Doctor_M said:
I've had to review public comments on Federal NEPA documents for DOD land development, and I can tell you, it is no fun. I feel sorry for the poor contractors that are going to have to wade through all of these.

If nothing else, their vocabularies will be expanded. Probably in several languages.

cornstalk · Jun 16, 2021

govwontletmebuycoolguns said:
I mean, you get dinged for having buis on the gun as if that is somehow relevant in making a determination (or even relevant to the brace discussion in general).

I noticed that too. How can they make backup sights a criteria for anything? If you look at the whole case about SBRs vs pistols, it's like we have a right to own a firearm, as long as the firearm is designed to be as ineffective as possible.

KarbinkleRich · Jun 16, 2021

I made sure to comment as well

Was thinking of getting an NFA tax stamp later making this issue a non-issue for me personally, but this pistol brace debacle is ridiculous, as well as the whole SBR thing. I'm relatively new to gun ownership and it's been a wild ride reading all about gun laws/gun trusts just because I was thinking of putting a vertical fore-grip on a pistol. The justification for the law was just that so many criminals were using these types of guns so they should be more regulated :sad20:

This is quite an annoyance. I've also heard different things about gun trusts. Someone told me anyone who is a trustee must also pay a $200 tax, while I've also heard that only the settlor has to pay the $200 to transfer it to the gun trust, and then other trustees must still give fingerprint/documents in. Anyway I'm holding off on all that for now. What are our chances of ever overturning the National Firearms Act :lol2:

?

Semper Noctem · Jun 16, 2021

Doctor_M said:
I've had to review public comments on Federal NEPA documents for DOD land development, and I can tell you, it is no fun. I feel sorry for the poor contractors that are going to have to wade through all of these.

I expect they will use NLP to review, lemmetize/tokenize, and provide summaries and themes for this volume of data.

scootinthru · Jun 16, 2021

Pistol Braces & the ATF

The ATF is looking to use these new regulations concerning pistol braces to redefine what constitutes an SBR. This, in spite of the fact that the ATF came out with a ruling in 2012, stating that firearms with barrels shorter than 16 inches fitted with stabilizing braces would continue to be classified as pistols. Ever since that ruling, the ATF has been under pressure from liberal politicians to reverse this decision, so that these politicians can point to this policy change as a way of proving to their constituents that they are doing something about gun control. The fact of the matter is that firearms fitted with braces are infrequently used in the commission of crimes involving firearms and are particularly rare in cases of mass shooting events. However, liberal politicians latched onto the idea of reform involving these types of firearms because they appeared to be low-hanging fruit for the pro gun-control community. Based on the criteria regarding the firearm design features identified on the so-called "scoresheet" the ATF recently proposed, just about all modern firearms fitted with braces will end up being reclassified as an SBR, which would render them a NFA item. Should this occur, it would force owners of these firearms to register them with the ATF in order to remain lawfully compliant. The ATF has already stated their intention to waive the $200 tax stamp that is usually associated with owning a NFA item in order to encourage compliance from the owners of these types of firearms. This fact, in and of itself, is a clear indicator that the ATF's true intention with this proposed rule change is to update and expand the national registry of firearms that the government has always been seeking to have in place ever since the 1968 Amnesty. Make no mistake in understanding that this is the true intention behind this entire exercise - plain & simple.

ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Ultimate Member

Eats Bacon Raw

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Defenestration Specialist

Attachments

Certified Mad Scientist

Certified Mad Scientist

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Member

Desk Rabbit

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics