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

[JRV]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this is my favorite part:

View attachment 342518


Sorry for the small text. Basically, the ATF can call a braced pistol an SBR if they think the intent was to create an SBR that still has few enough points to remain a braced pistol.

That's not new or weird, though. If you are one of those geniuses that goes on social media and exclusively runs an "approved" brace from the shoulder in every video and photo... I mean, that's just overwhelming evidence of intent to build an SBR and always has been.

It's dumb, useless, and prevents zero actual crime, but that's never not been the case.

 

[fishgutzy]

Next, the ATF will ban fishing fighting belts. They are going to be used to shoulder AR pistols.

 

[wvsig]

It is crazy but it looks like everyone is having a pistol brace sale at the same time. I wonder why? 😲

 

[HotSoup]

It is crazy but it looks like everyone is having a pistol brace sale at the same time. I wonder why? 😲

Because they are only bought for one reason. Once that reason is banned, the demand will drop like a crackheads weight.

 

[Dale Gribble]

Texas AG has weighed in...

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/2021/ATF%20Letter%20-%20Signed.Final_.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

 

[Dale Gribble]

Open for public comment...

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

EDIT: Well...it was working, but for some reason or another, it is giving an “error” message.

This link works:

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

 

[JRV]

Make sure to submit a comment!

I sent a comment in opposition to the proposed rule. I focused on the arbitrary and over-inclusive prohibitions on adjustability features and bipods. I focused on the fact that disabled shooters, the intended beneficiaries (by design) of braced pistols, need the ability to adapt and adjust braces (especially cuff-type and counterbalance-type braces) in order to ensure proper fit, balance, and safe use. I also stated that bipods are regular features on pistols used for hunting, target shooting, and competition, and I mentioned the S&W 460 XVR and Ruger Charger by name.

The proposed rule, regardless of how we feel about it, isn't completely absurd... about 10% of it makes sense. Rear surface area of a brace, brace modifications that make an armbrace useless as an "armbrace," and optics that are impossible to use with an armbrace all make logical sense when considering "pistol" or "rifle" under existing federal statutes.* Given the language of the NFA and GCA, as those statutes are written, the analysis should stop there. Punishing features that increase ergonomics and enable safe use of an armbrace (adjustments and bipod), adding points for features that most directly aid disabled shooters, is completely arbitrary and has no basis in the ATF's underlying statutory mandates.



* I'm not saying I "support" NFA or GCA regulations. I'm saying that, as written and duly passed, their language imposes certain criteria for pistols and rifles, and it's the ATF's job, whether we like it or not, to interpret and enforce those criteria.

 

[Dale Gribble]

Looks like most places are trying to move inventory...

Fudd Potterfield at Midway has implemented a “no return” policy on braces.

Primary Arms has most of their braces at $40 off and the HK PDW brace is $95 off.

Looks like PSA is the only one not concerned about the proposed trampling of rights / getting rid of inventory, as they haven’t knocked down the price of their braces.

 

[Bullfrog212]

So what about the mossberg shockwave with something like the Mesa Tactical brace adapter and sba3?

 

[JRV]

So I’ve been getting cross eyed with all of this. First of all, this proposed rule/law is such a bunch of BS. Since the Tailhook mod 1 is not adjustable nor has a strap, will it be safe or in the FELON 🙄 category?

If you take the proposed rule item-by-item, BATFEces made an effort to explain each point-value.

A Tailhook Mod-1 installed on a regular fixed pistol buffer-tube looks like it would be okay. You should not rely on internet strangers.

You’d need to make sure the gun is between 4 and 7.5 pounds and between 12 and 26 inches OAL. Looks like 3 points in Section 2 (1 for the QD sling mount on the Tailhook, 1 for the “minimized” rear contact area, and 1 for the folding counterbalance design). Less than 4.

2 points in Section 3 for up to 12.5” LOP, 0 points for a pistol buffer tube (or 1 point for a carbine/KAK dimpled tube), and no points if you have a red dot without “rifle sights”. If you stick with the standard pistol tube, you can throw rifle sights on and be at 3 points still. Check out the ATF’s own “braced pistol” example using an SB Mini.

The real big point-values are:

- adjustable LOP
- long LOP
- altered braces that don’t work as armbraces
- braces with substantial rear surface area (SBA3)
- folding stock adapters
- accessories that make armbrace use basically impossible at arm(riflescopes, foregrips)

 

[ChickenHawk]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but this is my favorite part:

View attachment 342518


Sorry for the small text. Basically, the ATF can call a braced pistol an SBR if they think the intent was to create an SBR that still has few enough points to remain a braced pistol.

 

[Dale Gribble]

Looks like I’d be at 7.1 lbs & OAL right at 28 inches with a 11.5” barrel.

Over the 26” limit to be considered “brace-worthy”.

 

[wvsig]

Make sure to submit a comment!

I sent a comment in opposition to the proposed rule. I focused on the arbitrary and over-inclusive prohibitions on adjustability features and bipods. I focused on the fact that disabled shooters, the intended beneficiaries (by design) of braced pistols, need the ability to adapt and adjust braces (especially cuff-type and counterbalance-type braces) in order to ensure proper fit, balance, and safe use. I also stated that bipods are regular features on pistols used for hunting, target shooting, and competition, and I mentioned the S&W 460 XVR and Ruger Charger by name.

The proposed rule, regardless of how we feel about it, isn't completely absurd... about 10% of it makes sense. Rear surface area of a brace, brace modifications that make an armbrace useless as an "armbrace," and optics that are impossible to use with an armbrace all make logical sense when considering "pistol" or "rifle" under existing federal statutes.* Given the language of the NFA and GCA, as those statutes are written, the analysis should stop there. Punishing features that increase ergonomics and enable safe use of an armbrace (adjustments and bipod), adding points for features that most directly aid disabled shooters, is completely arbitrary and has no basis in the ATF's underlying statutory mandates.



* I'm not saying I "support" NFA or GCA regulations. I'm saying that, as written and duly passed, their language imposes certain criteria for pistols and rifles, and it's the ATF's job, whether we like it or not, to interpret and enforce those criteria.

From my non-legal lay person reading of this it looks like the meat of the proposed rules that will push a large number of braces under NFA rules is adjustability and surface area. These are the areas IMHO that people's responses need to focus on. If we can demonstrate the arbitrary and subjective nature of their definitions on these two features more pistols will remain pistols. My take is that the argument can be made that the adjustability and surface area increase the safety and usefulness of a pistol brace like the SBA3 when shooting one handed and that the intent of these upgrades was better and safer one handed shooting not shouldering the pistol.

 

[BigWaylon]

Looks like I’d be at 7.1 lbs & OAL right at 28 inches with a 11.5” barrel.

Over the 26” limit to be considered “brace-worthy”.

This would allow a SBA3 and carbine tube?

Still depends on how they want OAL measured for this crap.

If it’s over 26” it ought to be a firearm, like the Shockwave. But because SBR is for barrel <16” and/or OAL <26”, I’d guess an SBR. I don’t know exactly what kind of mental gymnastics they’ll apply.

 

[BigWaylon]

From my non-legal lay person reading of this it looks like the meat of the proposed rules that will push a large number of braces under NFA rules is adjustability and surface area. These are the areas IMHO that people's responses need to focus on. If we can demonstrate the arbitrary and subjective nature of their definitions on these two features more pistols will remain pistols. My take is that the argument can be made that the adjustability and surface area increase the safety and usefulness of a pistol brace like the SBA3 when shooting one handed and that the intent of these upgrades was better and safer one handed shooting not shouldering the pistol.

And when you’re making the argument, don’t forget to mention a proper shooting grip on a standard handgun includes using both hands. 🤓

 

[NCFubar]

So what about the mossberg shockwave with something like the Mesa Tactical brace adapter and sba3?

There is a specific reference to “firearms” on page 11 of the ATF proposal … https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download …

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.

I ain’t a lawyer but way I read it attaching a brace on a Shockwave, Tac-14 or such ain’t gonna fly.

 

[Dale Gribble]

And when you’re making the argument, don’t forget to mention a proper shooting grip on a standard handgun includes using both hands. 🤓

And attach photos....

 

[Dale Gribble]

And more ammo...straight from the website of the Congressional Research Service...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11763

In the past eight years, larger, heavier handguns and pistol grip firearms have seen increased sales likely due, in no small part, to stabilizing braces. Most major firearms manufacturers are making firearms equipped with stabilizing braces as part of their featured product lines. While there are no available statistics to gauge authoritatively the number of stabilizing braces already made and sold in the United States, unofficial estimates suggest that there are between 10 and 40 million stabilizing braces and similar components already in civilian hands, either purchased as accessories or already attached to firearms made at home or at the factory. Altering the classification of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces would likely affect millions of owners.

 

[JRV]

Looks like I’d be at 7.1 lbs & OAL right at 28 inches with a 11.5” barrel.

My 10.5” with a KAK tube was either 25 1/4” or 25 3/4” (cannot remember) measured from crown to end of buffer or end of brace. The rubber cuff braces, because they theoretically can “slide” on a tube in use, might get a different measurement method than a Blade that screws into a dimple. But the Tailhook Mod 1 won’t extend longer than the end of the buffer tube by design. It clamps in flush. So, you would measure muzzle to buffer tube unless you pinned your muzzle device. You might need a barrel swap if the rule passes.

The “good” example in the proposed rule with the SB Mini looks like a standard 10.5” upper with a 9” MLOK rail and an A2 muzzle device, with a standard pistol buffer tube out back, being ascribed an OAL of 25.125 inches.

Also…

Don’t send the ATF pictures of people firing with two-handed grips in your comments. That’s a waste of time and not relevant.

The GCA clearly says a handgun has a short stock designed to be held and fired in one hand. It doesn’t say it “must” be held and fired with one hand, or that your hands cannot overlap on the short stock. Just that a handgun has a single gripping area. A braced pistol with no forward gripping accessories only has one grip, the pistol grip.

(Yes, I know an AR pistol has a “handguard,” but ATF isn’t making a stink about those, and it makes sense that they wouldn’t, because the handguard protects the gas system components and keeps the barrel from burning things.)

A braced pistol with a foregrip or other evidence of an intentional “forward” gripping position (e.g. AFG or handstop) is not a firearm designed to be held and fired with one hand… ergo, not a “pistol” in ATF’s view. Which, surprisingly, is actually consistent with the GCA statute. Still a dumb law, but that’s Congress for you.

 

[Dale Gribble]

The US Census population for those 18 and over is 255 million. I don’t think it is a stretch at all believing that half are gun owners, especially considering the NICS data over the past 2 years, so lets say 128 million gun owners in the US (personally, I think the number is much higher).

With 128 million gun owners in the US and the Congressional Reasearch Service estimating between 10 million - 40 million braces in the hands of the citizens, that’s between 8% and 32% of gun owners having a brace-equipped firearm.

That’s a lot.

 

[wvsig]

My 10.5” with a KAK tube was either 25 1/4” or 25 3/4” (cannot remember) measured from crown to end of buffer or end of brace. The rubber cuff braces, because they theoretically can “slide” on a tube in use, might get a different measurement method than a Blade that screws into a dimple. But the Tailhook Mod 1 won’t extend longer than the end of the buffer tube by design. It clamps in flush. So, you would measure muzzle to buffer tube unless you pinned your muzzle device. You might need a barrel swap if the rule passes.

The “good” example in the proposed rule with the SB Mini looks like a standard 10.5” upper with a 9” MLOK rail and an A2 muzzle device, with a standard pistol buffer tube out back, being ascribed an OAL of 25.125 inches.

Also…

Don’t send the ATF pictures of people firing with two-handed grips in your comments. That’s a waste of time and not relevant.

The GCA clearly says a handgun has a short stock designed to be held and fired in one hand. It doesn’t say it “must” be held and fired with one hand, or that your hands cannot overlap on the short stock. Just that a handgun has a single gripping area. A braced pistol with no forward gripping accessories only has one grip, the pistol grip.

(Yes, I know an AR pistol has a “handguard,” but ATF isn’t making a stink about those, and it makes sense that they wouldn’t, because the handguard protects the gas system components and keeps the barrel from burning things.)

A braced pistol with a foregrip or other evidence of an intentional “forward” gripping position (e.g. AFG or handstop) is not a firearm designed to be held and fired with one hand… ergo, not a “pistol” in ATF’s view. Which, surprisingly, is actually consistent with the GCA statute. Still a dumb law, but that’s Congress for you.

I think it is worth mentioning the grip because it points out one of the flaws in the GCA which they are exploiting. Pics of ATF agents shooting handed is most likely overkill and does not serve a purpose.

 

[wvsig]

The US Census population for those 18 and over is 255 million. I don’t think it is a stretch at all believing that half are gun owners, especially considering the NICS data over the past 2 years, so lets say 128 million gun owners in the US (personally, I think the number is much higher).

With 128 million gun owners in the US and the Congressional Reasearch Service estimating between 10 million - 40 million braces in the hands of the citizens, that’s between 8% and 32% of gun owners having a brace-equipped firearm.

That’s a lot.

I get where you are going with this but the reality is more likely that those who own a braced pistol own more than one. Just like you can't look at the total number of gun sold in the US and extrapolate the actual number of gun owners.

 

[wvsig]

Looking at the first 29 comments only 2 are well presented. I don't think they are perfect but the beat the one liners saying this is Unconstitutional. IMHO

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

 

[JRV]

I think it is worth mentioning the grip because it points out one of the flaws in the GCA which they are exploiting.

It's definitely imperfect statutory language. But, it implies a general size, weight, and form-factor for the traditional understanding of what a handgun is. Congress's alternative would have been prescribing weight, height, and form-factor limitations on handguns, which would have prevented AR pistols from ever existing.

Either way, I wouldn't really consider insisting on a "one-handed design," with no mandatory regulation requiring one-handed use, an exploit as much as it is a technically-accurate interpretation of the GCA statutory language. I definitely would consider the '94-04 AWB extreme weight limits an exploit of that language. Fortunately, that's off the table.

 

[Jayne]

And attach photos....

why? none of the other laws apply to the .gov so if they're turning all pistols into tiny rifles it makes zero difference. they're special, don't forget.

 

[BigTwig]

Looking at the first 29 comments only 2 are well presented. I don't think they are perfect but the beat the one liners saying this is Unconstitutional. IMHO

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

So you're saying mine wasn't well written? 😂 I know it wasn't but it doesn't matter. The more comments, even dumb 1 liners, the more effective. If they got say, 40 million comments, I think they might back off. Doubt we would get 40 million but it sure would help the cause.

I leave the well written and thought out ones to people like the AG in Texas (or whatever position he held).

 

[wvsig]

Am I reading this wrong? Have there only been 29 comments?

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

 

[GymB]

Am I reading this wrong? Have there only been 29 comments?

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

That’s what it looks like. Perhaps they have a batch process for posting them.

 

[IUHoosier429]

Am I reading this wrong? Have there only been 29 comments?

Regulations.gov

www.regulations.gov

Give it more than a day. It's our braindead government we're talking about - even in the off chances they actually get things right, it's never on the first day.

Hopefully the alleged lack of comments means countless gun owners are taking their time to craft well articulated arguments.

 

[bigfelipe]

What's with all the scope crap? Since when does a scope make something a rifle?

 

[Goofyfoot2001]

There are millions of them out there, and very few crimes committed with them. There is no rational reason to make them SBR's or restrict their ownership. If there are now millions of new SBR's because of this, and they haven't proven more crime-prone than traditional weapons, you have to ask why any barrel < 16" has any special regulation at all.

Take a seat my friend and let me tell you the story of an over bearing government who decided to unfairly tax a peoples. They enforced this tax with the weapons of the day.

The peoples were similarly armed and said, "hark, we object to this bullshitivous taxation!". The peoples then killed enough of the government to make their voices really heard, and thus was born a new nation under God.

And that my friend is why your arm brace is an SBR.

 

[Goofyfoot2001]

Give it more than a day. It's our braindead government we're talking about - even in the off chances they actually get things right, it's never on the first day.

Hopefully the alleged lack of comments means countless gun owners are taking their time to craft well articulated arguments.

I think it means, like me, they are tired of this stupid endless game. America is lawless as can be witnessed by the events of the last year. Lawless nations do not survive.

 

[GymB]

now 59

 

[wvsig]

now 59

I wonder how many are submitting via paper? The website limits the number of characters you can use but I believe if you submit via paper you can send up to five pages.

Looking at it again I believe you can submit your comment as a file so it can be longer than 5000 characters.

 

[JustKeepSwimming]

It seems to me like the number of comments submitted so far is the 10,922 figure to the left of the page.

Maybe I am reading the page wrong but I'm sure there have been more than 50 comments submitted from CFF members alone.

 

[JRV]

The overwhelming majority of these comments are... something else.

Lots of conclusions ("this is illegal" or "this is vague" or "this is against the NFA and/or GCA") without any information to support those conclusions (how is the rule vague, how is the rule inconsistent with underlying statutes). Lots of irrelevant griping that doesn't relate to the proposed rules ("go fight real crime instead of making more rules").

If you haven't commented yet, try to do so with the purpose of building a testimonial record that would demonstrate how the proposed rules are arbitrary or unclear. If FPC or someone else sues the ATF to overturn the rule for those reasons, they will need quality comments in support.

 

[wvsig]

It seems to me like the number of comments submitted so far is the 10,922 figure to the left of the page.

Maybe I am reading the page wrong but I'm sure there have been more than 50 comments submitted from CFF members alone.

You are 100% correct. Thanks for pointing that out. I missed it. Only 59 comments have been published but 10,922 have been received.

Comments Received
10,922
This count refers to the total comment/submissions received on this document, as of 11:59 PM yesterday. For a detailed description on how the displayed comment count is derived, please see the note on the FAQ page. Note: Comments are made on individual documents within the docket. To review other comments, please click on "Browse Comments".
Less Details

 

[amnesia]

I have to admit I laughed at this one. I didn't fact check it but he's probably not wrong.

The ATF is only interested in increasing its own unilateral authority and oppressing the fundamental right of Americans, especially poor Americans who can’t afford to tangle with their ever changing rules and regulations, to keep and carry firearms. More people died this year from inserting objects into their own anuses than have been killed by AR-15s in the last 5 years. In 2019 480,000 people died from tobacco use, which the ATF also regulates, but only 324 people were killed by rifles. It’s clear that the ATF and the Biden administration have an agenda unrelated to public safety.

 

[wvsig]

I have to admin I laughed at this one. I didn't fact check it but he's probably not wrong.

The ATF is only interested in increasing its own unilateral authority and oppressing the fundamental right of Americans, especially poor Americans who can’t afford to tangle with their ever changing rules and regulations, to keep and carry firearms. More people died this year from inserting objects into their own anuses than have been killed by AR-15s in the last 5 years. In 2019 480,000 people died from tobacco use, which the ATF also regulates, but only 324 people were killed by rifles. It’s clear that the ATF and the Biden administration have an agenda unrelated to public safety.

Not sure if Snopes has the answer for that one yet.

 

[Jayne]

It seems to me like the number of comments submitted so far is the 10,922 figure to the left of the page.

Maybe I am reading the page wrong but I'm sure there have been more than 50 comments submitted from CFF members alone.

That many submitted, but the censors can only read and approve so fast. Budget cuts ya know, they need more monies.