ATF 2021R-08: "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces'”

1
Former title: "ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces"

Published on 6/7/2021.

2021R-08
https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes amending Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations to clarify when a rifle
is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The Department proposes factors ATF
considers when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” to
determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle”
under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to
regulation under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). This proposed rule is a separate
action from the Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with
“Stabilizing Braces” published on December 18, 2020, and withdrawn on December 31,
2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were considered for this
proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to that notice will be considered as
part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection
with this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments must be
submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should be aware that the electronic
Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern
Time on the last day of the comment period.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulatio ... ing-braces
What is Proposed in this Rulemaking?
The proposed rule would:
  • Amend the definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition to clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached “stabilizing brace” that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
  • Set forth a worksheet “Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” ATF Worksheet 4999, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the criteria that ATF considers when evaluating firearm samples that are submitted with an attached “stabilizing brace” or similar component or accessory.
This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.
Relates to the following:
FATD lays it out (ATF pistol brace guidance)1
All the Honey Badgers in the house go ruh-roh
Last edited by DispositionMatrix on Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

5
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:55 am Here is ATF 4999 for determining whether your pistol is going to be declared an SBR for no real reason:
https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

Braced pistol requirements:
  • Weight: >64oz, <120oz
  • Length: >12", <26"
  • Length of pull: <13.5"
  • Brace arm strap is required.
  • Seconday grip is disallowed.
  • Scope with short eye relief is disallowed.
  • Bipod with a folding adapter is disallowed.
That’s more lenient than I expected. It seems like it’s designed to weed out the most outrageous examples. My surprise is with the minimum requirement. A brace pistol has to be heavier than 4lbs and longer than 12”?

Edit: nevermind, the scoring system is draconian. It is designed to return arm braces to the original rubber cuff design. It will make most of the existing braces illegal. The devil is in the detail.
Glad that federal government is boring again.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

6
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:55 am Here is ATF 4999 for determining whether your pistol is going to be declared an SBR for no real reason:
https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

Braced pistol requirements:
  • Weight: >64oz, <120oz
  • Length: >12", <26"
  • Length of pull: <13.5"
  • Brace arm strap is required.
  • Seconday grip is disallowed.
  • Scope with short eye relief is disallowed.
  • Bipod with a folding adapter is disallowed.
Can someone please explain the terms used to describe the braces in that document, is it even written in English?
Even more useful, can someone take the case of the most common brace and explain where they fit (fin, tailhook...)
That would be incredibly useful.
Thanks in advance

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

7
Yippie, more clear and concise gun regulations! There should be a law that laws should be interpretable by an average citizen of average intelligence. Isn't that what laws are for? To keep us average people in or outside of the law? California gun laws are so fucking complex you practically need flowcharts and attorneys on retainer to understand if you are in compliance. We definitely need more of that at the federal level... [/s]

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

9
My understanding is that it means that most braced pistols will now need to get tax stamps as SBRs. It remains to be seen whether existing owners will be able to get the stamp gratis or what kind of grace period will be offered to file an application etc etc.
I’m with ya’ll as to criticizing the unreasonableness of the rule, which is designed to make pretty much any existing braced pistol into an unstamped SBR. But I do think it’s important not to simply call it a “ban.” It sucks, but braced pistols will still be legal, albeit requiring a stamp and onerous registration process. Please explain if I’m technically incorrect about this.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

13
Northern wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:35 pm It sucks generally... but remember that there are millions of braced pistols in circulation and that many are in the hands of new owners. I have doubts about whether this proposed rule will make it to the finish line.
My guess is it's a forgone conclusion it will make it to the finish line. This change was prompted by a Biden EA from April. I doubt there is any basis on which anyone who reports to him cares about what is posted in the federal register by the rabble. Ultimately, the entries are just going to be a permanent record of who the malcontents are.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

14
If I had one, I’d rather just turn it into a rifle Than deal with the stamp hassle. It sucks you are out the cost of the brace & barrel, but you can use the same lower, upper, rail, etc. I thought about building one this past winter but fortunately, it just remains a stripped receiver.

Again - the parts to make an AR rifle, pistol & an SBR are interchangeable, and the only serialized part is the lower. It’s just a total BS regulatory “gotcha.” The precedent is that these have been legal for years, I expect this fiat ban to not likely last, but who knows...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

15
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:50 pm
Northern wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:35 pm It sucks generally... but remember that there are millions of braced pistols in circulation and that many are in the hands of new owners. I have doubts about whether this proposed rule will make it to the finish line.
My guess is it's a forgone conclusion it will make it to the finish line. This change was prompted by a Biden EA from April. I doubt there is any basis on which anyone who reports to him cares about what is posted in the federal register by the rabble. Ultimately, the entries are just going to be a permanent record of who the malcontents are.
It’s not the “rabble’s” comments that could stymie the rule, but rather, pressure from members of Congress who will be hearing from the people and from many businesses. I understand the cynicism, but from experience I can tell you that most proposed rules don’t make it to the end without significant revisions, and many are simply torpedoed.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

16
If you read the proposal, it is obvious they are still extremely vague and loose with the deciding factors.
This would work in our favor extremely well, if we could set aside the time to comment on these discrepancies, and burdens.
If they do not address them the courts will nullify it rather quickly.

Ar braces are great, they already have a pretty well established set of standards that do not need to be more vague, and restrictive at the same time, for no gain other than to burden law abiding citizens.
A tax stamp for an sbr is only a few dollars more than a brace from most places, and alot cheaper than some higher end options.
Ar pistols have been around along time, and have been scrutinized on the highest level since the first ones became popular. In the 80s.

They are not for everyone. I did not see the point for a very long time. But getting to know them better I found them to be very useful and versatile.
I have 3 currently, and it was not to avoid the due diligence of paying for the right to have an sbr to be restored. The tax men have gotten money from me for other things, and I passed that scrutiny.
So they should not make it a goal to complicate things in order to catch me or others outside a new definition.

"How long have you been holding that grenade?"

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

18
RedBanner wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:14 pm If you read the proposal, it is obvious they are still extremely vague and loose with the deciding factors.
This would work in our favor extremely well, if we could set aside the time to comment on these discrepancies, and burdens.
If they do not address them the courts will nullify it rather quickly.

Ar braces are great, they already have a pretty well established set of standards that do not need to be more vague, and restrictive at the same time, for no gain other than to burden law abiding citizens.
A tax stamp for an sbr is only a few dollars more than a brace from most places, and alot cheaper than some higher end options.
Ar pistols have been around along time, and have been scrutinized on the highest level since the first ones became popular. In the 80s.

They are not for everyone. I did not see the point for a very long time. But getting to know them better I found them to be very useful and versatile.
I have 3 currently, and it was not to avoid the due diligence of paying for the right to have an sbr to be restored. The tax men have gotten money from me for other things, and I passed that scrutiny.
So they should not make it a goal to complicate things in order to catch me or others outside a new definition.
A tax stamp for an SBR takes months to get and requires pointless bureaucracy and fingerprinting. Then removing the firearm from your home state requires a permission slip--every time. Also, the firearm has to be engraved. It is then more difficult to sell. You can apply to have the receiver unregistered. Whatever additional cost an expensive brace would incur over a tax stamp, it would be worth it to avoid the red tape and having to wallow in the ATF's utter stupidity.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

19
I'm aware of these advantages also as I reside on the confluence of 3 state lines. my main point was that we had a clear and legal path to compliance for years, that can be flipped on its head with the Trump style reacharound, that already proved fruitless and illegal concerning bumpstocks just a few months ago.
Requiring law abiding citizens to bare the cost of destruction or compliance, only to have that opinion struck down.
"How long have you been holding that grenade?"

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

20
RedBanner wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:17 pm I'm aware of these advantages also as I reside on the confluence of 3 state lines. my main point was that we had a clear and legal path to compliance for years, that can be flipped on its head with the Trump style reacharound, that already proved fruitless and illegal concerning bumpstocks just a few months ago.
Requiring law abiding citizens to bare the cost of destruction or compliance, only to have that opinion struck down.
Welcome to California gun laws..

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

22
Northern wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:57 am My understanding is that it means that most braced pistols will now need to get tax stamps as SBRs. It remains to be seen whether existing owners will be able to get the stamp gratis or what kind of grace period will be offered to file an application etc etc.
I’m with ya’ll as to criticizing the unreasonableness of the rule, which is designed to make pretty much any existing braced pistol into an unstamped SBR. But I do think it’s important not to simply call it a “ban.” It sucks, but braced pistols will still be legal, albeit requiring a stamp and onerous registration process. Please explain if I’m technically incorrect about this.
I am not allowed to have an SBR in my state due to state law. Is anyone considering a lawsuit?

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

23
INVICTVS138 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:22 pm If I had one, I’d rather just turn it into a rifle Than deal with the stamp hassle. It sucks you are out the cost of the brace & barrel, but you can use the same lower, upper, rail, etc. I thought about building one this past winter but fortunately, it just remains a stripped receiver.

Again - the parts to make an AR rifle, pistol & an SBR are interchangeable, and the only serialized part is the lower. It’s just a total BS regulatory “gotcha.” The precedent is that these have been legal for years, I expect this fiat ban to not likely last, but who knows...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There are plenty of guns that are not AR that accept braces. Not all can be easily changed to another format. This will be a huge problem for a lot of people.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

24
Matt Larosiere tries to explain it on the FPC's channel.
Decoding the ATF's proposed BAN on pistol braces

FPC's Matt Larosiere sits down and explains the ins and outs of the ATF's Proposed Rule 2021R-08, a rule change which would all but ban the legal use of pistol braces. The new rule contains a huge degree of vague and uncertain principles, combined with an absurd and illogical "points system" and a clause giving the ATF power to rule against their own criteria if they so choose!
This new rule is a slap in the face of gun owners, and we can't afford for it to go into effect. Unfortunately, the ATF is not yet allowing comments on their new proposed rule – though comments will open in the near future. To stay up-to-date, and to take action once comments are live, please visit SaveTheBraces.com. Likewise, to join the FPC Grassroots Army and fight back against tyranny and executive overreach, go to JoinFPC.org.

Re: ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

25
There are many problems I have with this ruling from a legal standpoint.

1) This is regulation and not actual legislation. Amendments/changes to the NFA should require congressional approval. You can't just have a bunch of bureaucrats completely change/update a law like this because they aren't accountable to the people like Congress is.

2) This is a means to make legal and law-abiding gun owners into felons and unable to buy firearms in the future because we'll be prohibited. This is more abuse from government when it comes to the use of felonies to deny us our civil rights. Yes, they will never be able to track everyone who owns these weapons, but it you somehow get caught with one from some other circumstance/situation, then your rights are gone.

3) The NFA is outdated. Most of us here with an ounce of education with firearms know that the law is outdated and needs parts of it removed. SBR's, short-barreled shotguns and suppressors should not be regulated by the NFA, period. There is no massive use of these weapons to commit crimes, and science proves that these weapons are less deadly than their full-size counterparts. This is why I can't agree with the "well if you get a stamp then you'll be fine" line of thinking. The NFA is supported by propaganda, misinformation and ignorance on the part of the American people. I'm sorry, but I like the idea of having a pistol AR chambered with 9mm and a suppressor as my primary home defense weapon, it's just a great weapon to fit that role (and I could say the same for shorter shotguns too.) But if we go by Biden's sage advice we have all we need with normal turkey blasters (despite how absurdly long hunting shotguns are) or handguns where we can totally aim for the bad guy's leg and wound them and everything will be a-ok.

4) They have a clause to override the points system they put in the letter. Basically, if they think you obtained the weapon to circumvent the NFA and getting a tax stamp, you have a SBR and are now a felon. To me, this means that all braced AR pistols are now required to be put under the NFA as an SBR or you're a felon, period. The only thing they may allow is you can prove a disability that shows the braced pistol is what works best for your disability.

5) Getting a tax stamp for suppressors, true SBRs, etc. takes forever, is invasive to your privacy, etc. How is adding millions of new SBRs to the tax stamp queue going to work exactly? Let's not forget they want to do this with normal AR-15s as well. It doesn't matter if you get this done during a "no charge" time period, we'll still be waiting for months and more likely years. I'm 100% sure there will be additional rules requiring us to make these weapons inoperable by some ridiculous means while we wait for the process to be completed. If any of us gets caught shooting one at the range or heaven forbid uses it in a home invasion, robbery, etc. while we're waiting for approval we'll be in deep shit. This is another example of adding rules with no thought to logistics, consequences, etc. for the normal American citizen.

6) This adds fuel to the crazies. I know this has to be a concern for you guys, namely since this will certainly help Republicans in future elections. My concern is the true gun crazies where this type of draconian crap makes them feel even more like they're being pressed into a corner by big government. And to be honest, when I see laws and regulations like this that make not an ounce of logical sense or blatantly looks like an attempt to "suppress the lower classes" and help the elites, uber rich, etc. to have more power - I can understand some of their fears. I obviously don't support their "solutions", but the arguments are there - if you can get someone to listen to you long enough without them labeling you as a crazy gun nut.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests