ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    Is it just me or does this chipman guy remind me of someone...
     

    Attachments

    • ac75a2bd95ee092c1d19434969f9dfac.jpg
      ac75a2bd95ee092c1d19434969f9dfac.jpg
      54.3 KB · Views: 340
    • 10827-7176-0.jpg
      10827-7176-0.jpg
      10.3 KB · Views: 319
    • Screen-Shot-2021-05-26-at-11.52.54-AM-e1622048886337.jpg
      Screen-Shot-2021-05-26-at-11.52.54-AM-e1622048886337.jpg
      43.3 KB · Views: 321

    TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    I apologize if this has been asked already. I've read the proposal a few times and gone over the score sheet. Every weapon in this category that I may or may not own would be considered an SBR. So I ask what exact LAW are they proposing to change ? If it's a RULE change what would I become a felon over ? What LAW would I then be breaking if I had such a weapon ? Please don't roast me too bad, I'm asking an honest question. I like most in our community am just a common working man and don't like thinking that I have a choice between $200 for every weapon or being a felon. Thank you

    The national Firearms Act of 1934 regulates short barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as machine guns and silencers. This is where the two hundred dollar tax stamp and the firearm registration comes from. If the ATF can redefine a pistol into a short barrel rifle by the addition of an arm brace, it would fall under the 1934 NFA law and would require the owner to register the firearm and pay the tax.

    The current leftist regime through the ATF is trying to redefine terms to fit into existing laws because they know that they do not have enough support to pass new laws.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,019
    Glenelg
    thanks effn mobsters

    The national Firearms Act of 1934 regulates short barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as machine guns and silencers. This is where the two hundred dollar tax stamp and the firearm registration comes from. If the ATF can redefine a pistol into a short barrel rifle by the addition of an arm brace, it would fall under the 1934 NFA law and would require the owner to register the firearm and pay the tax.

    The current leftist regime through the ATF is trying to redefine terms to fit into existing laws because they know that they do not have enough support to pass new laws.

    Thanks to a few week shooting spree by mobsters...........
     

    TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    You know honestly, if the ATF was allowed to change an existing law by adding the term "arm brace" to the definition of a rifle, what's to stop them from changing any law by manipulating definitions? Why not define all firearms as fully automatic. The ATF can find a way to word it, they did with the bump stock. That way any firearm made before 1986 would need to be federally registered and a tax paid, and the guns made after 1986 would need to be federally registered and only possessed and transferred between licensed dealers and law enforcement. This would in effect create an almost total gun ban in the US. The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that. Liberals should be worried about this too. What if the term abortion was legally defined as murder? The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that too. The left regime along with the AFT is clearly trying to write laws and that is way beyond their jurisdiction.
     

    John from MD

    American Patriot
    MDS Supporter
    May 12, 2005
    22,733
    Socialist State of Maryland
    You know honestly, if the ATF was allowed to change an existing law by adding the term "arm brace" to the definition of a rifle, what's to stop them from changing any law by manipulating definitions? Why not define all firearms as fully automatic. The ATF can find a way to word it, they did with the bump stock. That way any firearm made before 1986 would need to be federally registered and a tax paid, and the guns made after 1986 would need to be federally registered and only possessed and transferred between licensed dealers and law enforcement. This would in effect create an almost total gun ban in the US. The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that. Liberals should be worried about this too. What if the term abortion was legally defined as murder? The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that too. The left regime along with the AFT is clearly trying to write laws and that is way beyond their jurisdiction.

    The Bump Stock challenge is in the courts now. From what I have read, those in the know feel that it cannot survive.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    You know honestly, if the ATF was allowed to change an existing law by adding the term "arm brace" to the definition of a rifle, what's to stop them from changing any law by manipulating definitions? Why not define all firearms as fully automatic. The ATF can find a way to word it, they did with the bump stock. That way any firearm made before 1986 would need to be federally registered and a tax paid, and the guns made after 1986 would need to be federally registered and only possessed and transferred between licensed dealers and law enforcement. This would in effect create an almost total gun ban in the US. The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that. Liberals should be worried about this too. What if the term abortion was legally defined as murder? The arm brace ruling could pave the way for that too. The left regime along with the AFT is clearly trying to write laws and that is way beyond their jurisdiction.

    I think the point is they aren’t redefining a rifle by including arm brace. The proposed regulations layout when the ATF considers an arm brace as something really designed to shoulder the firearm and thus a rifle.

    I think the ATF is rather full of shit. I think the NFA is full of more shit. But you’ve gotta be shitting me if 95+% of braced pistol owners didn’t buy or build a braced pistol as an end run around the NFA (or here in MD, 29OAL requirements). Is a brace a stock? No?

    Maybe? Most braced pistol owners use them as crappy stocks and not actually as braces.

    Honestly the brace thing was something bound to happen eventually and I think we all knew it. I am just surprised Maryland or another state didn’t crack down first.

    Hopefully we can still fight it successfully, but this one more than 80% I think is going to be a hell of a heavy lift unless we some how manage to make the argument the ATF can’t just make tens of millions of things illegal after tacitly accepting them. I don’t think we are going to win on “no, the ATF is wrong. These are in no way anything like a stock to shoulder the firearm” as that’s what the vast majority of braced pistol owners do with them.
     

    TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    This is an interesting paragraph.

    These criteria and worksheet do not
    apply to firearms with a smooth bore
    that use shotgun ammunition. These
    types of firearms, commonly referred to
    as ‘‘pistol grip shotguns,’’ were never
    designed to be fired from one hand (e.g.,
    Mossberg Shockwave, Remington Tac-14). ATF has always classified these
    weapons as GCA ‘‘firearms,’’ not
    shotguns or pistols, as they do not
    incorporate a stock, like a shotgun, and
    are not designed to be fired from one
    hand, like a pistol. Thus, the addition of
    a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ does not assist
    with single-handed firing, but rather
    redesigns the firearm to provide surface
    area for firing from the shoulder.
     

    TinCuda

    Sky Captain
    Apr 26, 2016
    1,556
    Texas
    I think the point is they aren’t redefining a rifle by including arm brace. The proposed regulations layout when the ATF considers an arm brace as something really designed to shoulder the firearm and thus a rifle.

    I think the ATF is rather full of shit. I think the NFA is full of more shit. But you’ve gotta be shitting me if 95+% of braced pistol owners didn’t buy or build a braced pistol as an end run around the NFA (or here in MD, 29OAL requirements). Is a brace a stock? No?

    Maybe? Most braced pistol owners use them as crappy stocks and not actually as braces.

    Honestly the brace thing was something bound to happen eventually and I think we all knew it. I am just surprised Maryland or another state didn’t crack down first.

    Hopefully we can still fight it successfully, but this one more than 80% I think is going to be a hell of a heavy lift unless we some how manage to make the argument the ATF can’t just make tens of millions of things illegal after tacitly accepting them. I don’t think we are going to win on “no, the ATF is wrong. These are in no way anything like a stock to shoulder the firearm” as that’s what the vast majority of braced pistol owners do with them.

    If 95% of folks buy an arm brace to circumvent the NFA, maybe it's time to reverse that law. If it is not popular with the majority than why does it exist? Maybe this is the kick in the pants that people need to stand up and say to their representation that this is a bunch of crap and we need to start repealing some of this outdated and unpopular legislation.

    Where exactly are the NRA on this? Have they made a statement?
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    This is an interesting paragraph.

    These criteria and worksheet do not
    apply to firearms with a smooth bore
    that use shotgun ammunition. These
    types of firearms, commonly referred to
    as ‘‘pistol grip shotguns,’’ were never
    designed to be fired from one hand (e.g.,
    Mossberg Shockwave, Remington Tac-14). ATF has always classified these
    weapons as GCA ‘‘firearms,’’ not
    shotguns or pistols, as they do not
    incorporate a stock, like a shotgun, and
    are not designed to be fired from one
    hand, like a pistol. Thus, the addition of
    a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ does not assist
    with single-handed firing, but rather
    redesigns the firearm to provide surface
    area for firing from the shoulder.

    Yeah, I am not aware of the ATF ever blessing a pistol brace on a shotgun. Per that language from the NPRM, they are making it crystal clear, a brace on a shotgun is changing it from a GCA "firearm" in to an SBS. Full stop. Doesn't matter what kind of brace it is.

    That being said, there are absolutely real shotgun handguns. Stupid, but I've for sure seen little break action single and SxS 8-10" barreled shotguns you couldn't really shoot with two hands. Not sure you'd really want to shoot that with one hand either.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    If 95% of folks buy an arm brace to circumvent the NFA, maybe it's time to reverse that law. If it is not popular with the majority than why does it exist? Maybe this is the kick in the pants that people need to stand up and say to their representation that this is a bunch of crap and we need to start repealing some of this outdated and unpopular legislation.

    Where exactly are the NRA on this? Have they made a statement?

    Haven't heard.

    But yes, that is largely my point. Millions have been trying to circumvent the NFA for a few years now and largely the ATF has tacitly blessed it. I think both parties were aware of what was going on. Now one of them wants to cry foul several years and likely tens of millions of braced pistols later.

    My ideal outcome would be that this effectively undermines and causes at least the portion of the NFA governing SBRs to be struck down. I think the most likely best case is that the ATF ends up being required to grandfather them in to a tax stamp (which also means you'll still need to engrave and register it). I guess it is possible the courts up through SCOTUS will end up striking down the regulation is too vague or something like that.

    I think unlike with the 80% NPRM, I don't think SCOTUS or most appeals courts is going to consider this a criminal re-interpretation of the law. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think ATF really HAS had much to say on what defines a stock. At most they are making it clear what it means to design or redesign a firearm to be fired from the shoulder.

    On the 80% NPRM, the ATF is changing their interpretation of the law completely from what it has been for more than 50 years. And their interpretation differs from what the law actually SAYS. IE their proposed regulation does not have a basis in the law. So I think them winning in the end on their 80% NPRM just seems entirely unlikely (they might get it upheld requiring FFLs to serialize home built firearms or 80% that pass through their hands, but redefining what is a firearm I don't think would pass judicial muster).
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    The problem is the definition of a "handgun" from the '34 NFA wears its pants on its head.

    (29)The term “handgun” means—
    (A)a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
    (B)any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.

    No one has been trained to assume a dueling stance, with their weak hand in their pocket or behind their back, as their preferred means of shooting a handgun in 50 years.

    What is the 'short stock,' since it isn't defined in 922. Can it extend rearward of the base of the hand or the wrist, ie, how short is "short." Such as a Mare's Leg.

    The ATF is also saying the use of rifle sights or bipods is incompatible with being a pistol, when silhouette pistols have been shot with rifle type irons and eye relief scopes for decades, and hunters can choose to use a bipod or tripod as needed.
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    Let’s flip the question. If braces are equivalent to stocks, why would anyone buy a stock? If the ATF is correct, a brace has two purposes a stock and a brace. Why would anyone go through the trouble/expense for a single function SBR when for less hassle, they could have twice the function?

    I would like to hear ATF answer that one.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,203
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom