The ATF's Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) has issued a statement of clarification regarding the use and classification of arms with braces.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ing-braces

AmirMortal wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:29 am The ATF's Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) has issued a statement of clarification regarding the use and classification of arms with braces.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ing-braces

There is related info in the thread about the brace debacle. It includes a draft of the ATF's document:
https://theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/vi ... 1&start=75

Having a direct link to the federal register, rather than the draft, and not buried in a thread seems like a good idea.

AmirMortal wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:27 pm Having a direct link to the federal register, rather than the draft, and not buried in a thread seems like a good idea.

Hey Amir..! Haven't seen you in a dogs age (that means a long time) ... How ya doin? Still floating up in the rigging wearing a kilt?

rolandson wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:39 pm

AmirMortal wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:27 pm Having a direct link to the federal register, rather than the draft, and not buried in a thread seems like a good idea.

Hey Amir..! Haven't seen you in a dogs age (that means a long time) ... How ya doin? Still floating up in the rigging wearing a kilt?

Hey man! I'm standing by to resume. Furloughed and in limbo, but still kicking.

AmirMortal wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:41 pm

rolandson wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:39 pm

AmirMortal wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:27 pm Having a direct link to the federal register, rather than the draft, and not buried in a thread seems like a good idea.

Hey Amir..! Haven't seen you in a dogs age (that means a long time) ... How ya doin? Still floating up in the rigging wearing a kilt?

Hey man! I'm standing by to resume. Furloughed and in limbo, but still kicking. :drunklep:

out-fucking-standing! Good seeing ya!

And yeah, I too happen to think access to the document seeking comment provides a more reliable starting point for discussion.

For those not familar; when the feds "send* a letter" it is far more significant that a postcard from Auntie May...it's not really a letter...it is the starting salvo in a very serious and expensive process. Like "a letter" from the IRS.

It would appear that this is directly related to, but not limited in scope to, the Honey Badger thing. Thank you Q for your wonderful marketing strategy.

*they don't call it that...they call it "issue".

There will be those that get the Tax Stamp since it is free right now for those that already have the brace. But there will be those that have the "Gonna Take My Gunz" and not get the Tax Stamp and may suffer the consequences.

There will be many of the manufactures out of business or try and finagle their way around the ruling.

TrueTexan wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 5:05 pm There will be those that get the Tax Stamp since it is free right now for those that already have the brace. But there will be those that have the "Gonna Take My Gunz" and not get the Tax Stamp and may suffer the consequences.

There will be many of the manufactures out of business or try and finagle their way around the ruling.

The ATF is currently in the comment period for this change. Somehow it's 14 days rather than 90. People allegedly are not going to know they are required to get tax stamps merely based on having purchased braces. The ATF rules on the entire firearm, including the brace, rather than just the brace.

Despite the letter having been withdrawn, the RFC is still up.

Well, the ATF has shown, over several years and multiple occasions, that they seem to have a hard time understanding, defining and classifying firearms with stabilizing braces on them.
As an owner of several firearms with braces on them, I enjoy their existence and what they provide. I will also not play dumb and pretend that they do not allow me to essentially own a Short Barreled Rifle sans a Tax Stamp, and neither does the ATF.
I understand, or at least think I do, the reasoning behind the Nation Firearms Act, but all in all I find it unnecessary and dumb. Short Barreled Rifles and Shot Guns, in MOST cases, are not any more lethal that their full sized variants. In fact, in many cases, the firearm has less velocity, range and feed reliability.
And, aside from all of the ridiculous definitions and regulations, most concerning is the reality, especially when you look at this through the lens of when it was drafted and implemented, that this makes the ability to own and possess material from this act limited to those who can afford it. As they had not made any ruling to account for inflation (way to go!), what was $250 in 1934 would be very close to $5,000 today. I see that as an attempt to limit the possession and ownership of automatic firearms, concealable weapons, suppressors and destructive devices to the affluent, and limit possession to the lower classes.
But alas, $250 is a lot less that $5k, but more than nothing, so the Government will look for ways to make we, the people, pay for ownership.
And concerning the ATF's latest "Yes, No, Maybe So" letter, until I see a law put forth, I will continue to utilize my stabilizing braces as I see fit, which was considered "legal" (with the exception of physical modifications to the brace) per their "Yes, No, Maye So" letter in March 2017.

Is there any new news on this topic? Thanks guys

Myat wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:04 pm Is there any new news on this topic? Thanks guys

Not banned as of this moment. If anything else pertaining to braced pistols is going on inside the ATF right now, we won't hear about it for months.

Give it time. For no logical reason, government entities will be going after braced pistols, whether by ATF edict or congressional legislation.