collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces  (Read 9012 times)

Offline huntnphool

  • Chance favors the prepared mind!
  • Political & Covid-19 Topics
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 32898
  • Location: Pacific NorthWest
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2020, 06:45:43 PM »
25 years ago, the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)
were keeping us from buying and owning what we want. And who voted in the Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) ?
And who was in office?

 Clinton

Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani were also huge supporters

  :chuckle:
The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first!

Offline Alchase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 20345
  • Location: Tinker AFB, OK
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2020, 09:09:04 AM »
A Different take on the ATF' Published notice about Stabilizing Braces.

"I have myself once been subject to an earthquake. What was so weird about it was that things moved that you’d never expect to be moving. It was simply unnatural. Something similar happened Friday with the ATF and the pistol stabilizing brace (PSB). A recent notice of proposed rulemaking strongly implies that many, if not all, brace-equipped pistols might soon be considered NFA items requiring federal registration. However, it also seems we might actually be facing the prospect of a partial NFA amnesty.

Let’s get one thing clear. I believe every blasphemous syllable of the 1934 National Firearms Act to be an unconstitutional affront to both the Founders and every great American who subsequently died for that hallowed document. The sundry dicta establishing length limits, caliber restrictions, and what sort of firearm actions we can possess are the very embodiment of infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. However, it really doesn’t matter what I believe. For my natural lifetime at least, we’re stuck with this stuff.

ATF Publishes Notice on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace
On Dec. 18, the ATF published a notice of official rulemaking in the Federal Register concerning “The Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces.” We have been screaming for years for some concrete guidance from the ATF on just what is and isn’t legal when it comes to pistol stabilizing braces. I guess we should be careful what we scream for.

This public notice portends some momentous changes in the way the ATF regulates PSBs. Pronouncements of such profound gravitas are typically published in advance to allow for a public comment period. However, I doubt our comments really matter a great deal.

I have a friend with a daughter who is not terribly durable. When she was small and got sideways over something, he would frequently put her someplace safe and just let her scream herself out; that is likely what the ATF is doing with us. We only have two weeks to respond anyway, and one of those is Christmas. Given the character of the incoming presidential administration, I seriously doubt it matters one whit what we say in response. However, the nuance of this thing is indeed frankly fascinating.

The Meat of the Matter
This notice is 16 pages long. I’ve studied it in detail several times so you don’t have to. I am, however, not a lawyer. I’m just some guy with a laptop who really likes guns. Time will tell how things play out, but here’s what it looks like to me.

Firstly, we all saw this coming. I personally wrote about it a couple of weeks ago on this very website. The ATF only reluctantly approved the addition of a pistol stabilizing brace to big-boned pistols as an aid to allow disabled shooters to run their guns one-handed. This was an undeniably noble pursuit. The rub was that all of us succumbed to the inevitable temptation to fire brace-equipped pistols from the shoulder. We saw PSBs as deliverance from the onerous unconstitutional barrel length restrictions codified within the NFA. Alas, that was never going to last. Here’s some of the ATF’s direct wording:

The same manufacturers will then advertise their products as devices that permit customers to fire their “pistols” from the shoulder—that is, making a “short-barreled rifle”—without complying with the requirements of the NFA. This is far from the “incidental” use of an arm brace as a shouldering device as described in ATF’s 2017 guidance (see footnote 8), but is instead marketing material that directly contradicts the purpose or intent that the manufacturer conveyed to ATF.

What Does It All Mean?
Distilled down to its essence, this document strives to codify the sorts of characteristics the ATF will use to approve brace-equipped pistols outside the draconian restrictions of the NFA. A conventional Title 1 pistol needs a driver’s license, a Form 4473, an instant background check, and you go home with the gun. That same weapon as a short-barreled rifle needs fingerprints, paperwork, a $200 tribute, and a months-long wait. The category into which a firearm falls is therefore a really big deal.

The notice includes non-specific references to a gun’s size, weight, general geometry, accessories, sights, and similar gestalt. The bottom line is that if the weapon feels like it should be fired from the shoulder rather than with one hand, it will likely be classified as a short-barreled rifle. The notice emphasizes that each gun/brace combination must be analyzed on its merits on a case-by-case basis.

Forget that the only time I would ever fire a handgun one-handed for real is if my other hand had been shot off. One-handed operation was indeed the defining factor for establishing handgun status back in 1934. Literally nobody does that nowadays. However, these tragically dated definitions still drive the train today.

As such, it looks like many to most PSB-equipped pistols are likely about to be reclassified as short-barreled rifles with all the associated registration baggage. Now take a deep breath and digest that for a moment. There are an estimated four million of these delightful devices currently in circulation; that’s an awful lot of law-abiding citizens currently teetering on the brink of owning unregistered NFA weapons.

But There’s More …
It looks like the Attorney General, through the ATF, is proposing a tax-free amnesty of sorts. The phrase used in the document is, “An expedited application process and the retroactive exemption of such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes.”

Try to look at this half full rather than half empty. Governments regulate stuff. Having American shooters in possession of short-barreled guns of this sort without having endured the pain and suffering of federal registration is the kind of thing regulatory bodies like the ATF simply can’t long abide. However, by proposing an amnesty, the government offers us a bit of a carrot. It allows us to transform our PSB-equipped pistols into registered SBRs without all the associated heartache.

The keyword here is “registered,” which hits a nerve with a lot of people. Take a look at the pistol brace extraordinaire SB Tactical. In a recent statement regarding the ATF’s new position, SB Tactical said: “Instead, the document is a thinly veiled blueprint for the largest firearm registration—and ultimately potentially confiscation—scheme in U.S. history.”

Ruminating On the ATF and the Pistol Stabilizing Brace
Biden’s ATF would likely have just declared PSB-equipped guns universally contraband. The bump stock debacle represents a precedent for such a draconian move. However, by proposing an amnesty, the outgoing Trump administration gives us a mechanism by which we can retain our toys without unnecessarily criminalizing literally millions of law-abiding gun owners.

Having to register your guns with the government is a clear infringement that is both unconstitutional and wrong. However, this is the world in which we live. That unfortunately being so, it seems to me that the outgoing Attorney General might have actually just thrown us a bone.

The post ATF Releases Notice on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace, Opens Door for SBRs appeared first on Personal Defense World."

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2020/12/atf-pistol-stabilizing-brace-notice/

So hypothetically, if we have to register our rifles with Braces (as SBRs) without having to pay the $200 tax and wait months. We would now own a legal SBR.  :rolleyes:

So if we now own said hypothetical "SBR" should we not be able to shorten barrels and add vertical grips like any other SBR.  :dunno:

If this is the case, I would be inclined to "hypothetically" buying a few more AR Pistols in anticipation, and save the $200 Tax.  :hello:

 :chuckle:
Only 2 defining forces sacrificed themselves for you:
The American Soldier and Jesus Christ. One died for your freedom, the other for your soul.

My rock,
He trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.
Psalm 144.1

Offline lamrith

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2014
  • Posts: 2161
  • Location: Tacoma, WA
    • https://www.facebook.com/pelletpeddler/
    • Pellet Peddler LLC
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2020, 09:17:52 AM »
A Different take on the ATF' Published notice about Stabilizing Braces.

"I have myself once been subject to an earthquake. What was so weird about it was that things moved that you’d never expect to be moving. It was simply unnatural. Something similar happened Friday with the ATF and the pistol stabilizing brace (PSB). A recent notice of proposed rulemaking strongly implies that many, if not all, brace-equipped pistols might soon be considered NFA items requiring federal registration. However, it also seems we might actually be facing the prospect of a partial NFA amnesty.

Let’s get one thing clear. I believe every blasphemous syllable of the 1934 National Firearms Act to be an unconstitutional affront to both the Founders and every great American who subsequently died for that hallowed document. The sundry dicta establishing length limits, caliber restrictions, and what sort of firearm actions we can possess are the very embodiment of infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. However, it really doesn’t matter what I believe. For my natural lifetime at least, we’re stuck with this stuff.

ATF Publishes Notice on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace
On Dec. 18, the ATF published a notice of official rulemaking in the Federal Register concerning “The Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces.” We have been screaming for years for some concrete guidance from the ATF on just what is and isn’t legal when it comes to pistol stabilizing braces. I guess we should be careful what we scream for.

This public notice portends some momentous changes in the way the ATF regulates PSBs. Pronouncements of such profound gravitas are typically published in advance to allow for a public comment period. However, I doubt our comments really matter a great deal.

I have a friend with a daughter who is not terribly durable. When she was small and got sideways over something, he would frequently put her someplace safe and just let her scream herself out; that is likely what the ATF is doing with us. We only have two weeks to respond anyway, and one of those is Christmas. Given the character of the incoming presidential administration, I seriously doubt it matters one whit what we say in response. However, the nuance of this thing is indeed frankly fascinating.

The Meat of the Matter
This notice is 16 pages long. I’ve studied it in detail several times so you don’t have to. I am, however, not a lawyer. I’m just some guy with a laptop who really likes guns. Time will tell how things play out, but here’s what it looks like to me.

Firstly, we all saw this coming. I personally wrote about it a couple of weeks ago on this very website. The ATF only reluctantly approved the addition of a pistol stabilizing brace to big-boned pistols as an aid to allow disabled shooters to run their guns one-handed. This was an undeniably noble pursuit. The rub was that all of us succumbed to the inevitable temptation to fire brace-equipped pistols from the shoulder. We saw PSBs as deliverance from the onerous unconstitutional barrel length restrictions codified within the NFA. Alas, that was never going to last. Here’s some of the ATF’s direct wording:

The same manufacturers will then advertise their products as devices that permit customers to fire their “pistols” from the shoulder—that is, making a “short-barreled rifle”—without complying with the requirements of the NFA. This is far from the “incidental” use of an arm brace as a shouldering device as described in ATF’s 2017 guidance (see footnote 8), but is instead marketing material that directly contradicts the purpose or intent that the manufacturer conveyed to ATF.

What Does It All Mean?
Distilled down to its essence, this document strives to codify the sorts of characteristics the ATF will use to approve brace-equipped pistols outside the draconian restrictions of the NFA. A conventional Title 1 pistol needs a driver’s license, a Form 4473, an instant background check, and you go home with the gun. That same weapon as a short-barreled rifle needs fingerprints, paperwork, a $200 tribute, and a months-long wait. The category into which a firearm falls is therefore a really big deal.

The notice includes non-specific references to a gun’s size, weight, general geometry, accessories, sights, and similar gestalt. The bottom line is that if the weapon feels like it should be fired from the shoulder rather than with one hand, it will likely be classified as a short-barreled rifle. The notice emphasizes that each gun/brace combination must be analyzed on its merits on a case-by-case basis.

Forget that the only time I would ever fire a handgun one-handed for real is if my other hand had been shot off. One-handed operation was indeed the defining factor for establishing handgun status back in 1934. Literally nobody does that nowadays. However, these tragically dated definitions still drive the train today.

As such, it looks like many to most PSB-equipped pistols are likely about to be reclassified as short-barreled rifles with all the associated registration baggage. Now take a deep breath and digest that for a moment. There are an estimated four million of these delightful devices currently in circulation; that’s an awful lot of law-abiding citizens currently teetering on the brink of owning unregistered NFA weapons.

But There’s More …
It looks like the Attorney General, through the ATF, is proposing a tax-free amnesty of sorts. The phrase used in the document is, “An expedited application process and the retroactive exemption of such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes.”

Try to look at this half full rather than half empty. Governments regulate stuff. Having American shooters in possession of short-barreled guns of this sort without having endured the pain and suffering of federal registration is the kind of thing regulatory bodies like the ATF simply can’t long abide. However, by proposing an amnesty, the government offers us a bit of a carrot. It allows us to transform our PSB-equipped pistols into registered SBRs without all the associated heartache.

The keyword here is “registered,” which hits a nerve with a lot of people. Take a look at the pistol brace extraordinaire SB Tactical. In a recent statement regarding the ATF’s new position, SB Tactical said: “Instead, the document is a thinly veiled blueprint for the largest firearm registration—and ultimately potentially confiscation—scheme in U.S. history.”

Ruminating On the ATF and the Pistol Stabilizing Brace
Biden’s ATF would likely have just declared PSB-equipped guns universally contraband. The bump stock debacle represents a precedent for such a draconian move. However, by proposing an amnesty, the outgoing Trump administration gives us a mechanism by which we can retain our toys without unnecessarily criminalizing literally millions of law-abiding gun owners.

Having to register your guns with the government is a clear infringement that is both unconstitutional and wrong. However, this is the world in which we live. That unfortunately being so, it seems to me that the outgoing Attorney General might have actually just thrown us a bone.

The post ATF Releases Notice on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace, Opens Door for SBRs appeared first on Personal Defense World."

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2020/12/atf-pistol-stabilizing-brace-notice/

So hypothetically, if we have to register our rifles with Braces (as SBRs) without having to pay the $200 tax and wait months. We would now own a legal SBR.  :rolleyes:

So if we now own said hypothetical "SBR" should we not be able to shorten barrels and add vertical grips like any other SBR.  :dunno:

If this is the case, I would be inclined to "hypothetically" buying a few more AR Pistols in anticipation, and save the $200 Tax.  :hello:

 :chuckle:
I have not owned a ar pistol or brace for the reasons we are seeing now.  Just never trusted they would stay legal.. 

I do already own sbr's though, so already on "the list"  However the last half of your summary in regards to amnesty/sbr registration has me thinking it might be time to buy or make a few pistols and get the free upgrade ;-)

Offline Alchase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 20345
  • Location: Tinker AFB, OK
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2020, 10:21:30 AM »
 :yeah:

I do already own sbr's though, so already on "the list"  However the last half of your summary in regards to amnesty/sbr registration has me thinking it might be time to buy or make a few pistols and get the free upgrade ;-)

If it is like getting a free stamp, I'm all in.  :hello:

 :chuckle:
Only 2 defining forces sacrificed themselves for you:
The American Soldier and Jesus Christ. One died for your freedom, the other for your soul.

My rock,
He trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.
Psalm 144.1

Offline CP

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2008
  • Posts: 7030
  • Location: Mukilteo
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2020, 11:17:24 AM »
I'd rather have a pistol then an SBR with a free stamp.

Offline Caseyd

  • Site Sponsor
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 3018
  • Location: Washington
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2020, 02:00:19 PM »
I'd rather have a pistol then an SBR with a free stamp.

 :yeah:

Offline KFhunter

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 34512
  • Location: NE Corner
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2020, 04:27:44 PM »
Ya. Defeats the whole purpose of having a pistol.

Carry loaded.


Otherwise just gimme an AR rifle.

Offline actionshooter

  • Past Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Old Salt
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 6031
  • Location: Olympia/Okanogan
    • https://www.instagram.com/steve.bell.actionshooter/

Offline grundy53

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 12860
  • Location: Lake Stevens
  • Learn something new everyday.
    • facebook
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2020, 05:59:16 PM »
Weird. Almost like they realized the they were creating a huge mess....

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Molôn Labé
Can you skin Grizz?

The opinions expressed in my posts do not represent those of the forum.

Offline Alchase

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Legend
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Posts: 20345
  • Location: Tinker AFB, OK
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2020, 06:02:17 PM »
This is a strange turn.... from today
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf?fbclid=IwAR0EOcXH5KL0CTpemPGZ8wH4RRqK7cpxqtbIS4HQCX-IOuO5tvPVkuHZvf8


Well, that could many almost anything.  :rolleyes:
Let’s hope and pray they are not whipping up something more Strict.
Only 2 defining forces sacrificed themselves for you:
The American Soldier and Jesus Christ. One died for your freedom, the other for your soul.

My rock,
He trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.
Psalm 144.1

Offline grundy53

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 12860
  • Location: Lake Stevens
  • Learn something new everyday.
    • facebook
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2020, 06:38:38 PM »
They probably didn't realize just how many of these are out there.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Molôn Labé
Can you skin Grizz?

The opinions expressed in my posts do not represent those of the forum.

Offline wolfbait

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: May 2009
  • Posts: 9187

Offline konradcountry

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2016
  • Posts: 1013
  • Location: SouthWest
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #42 on: December 26, 2020, 06:12:54 PM »
I don't see a win.

Biden wants to Class 3 all AR-15s.

They are probably just waiting to see if he has the votes.

Offline nopretext

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Tracker
  • **
  • Join Date: Jun 2020
  • Posts: 28
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Looks like the BATFE is going after AR15 Pistol Braces
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2020, 08:28:37 AM »
This is easy to miss in all the celebration (and misinformation from a lot of sources) but both that memo and its retraction change nothing. This is why it didn’t get the 90 day comment period for proposed rulemaking - it wasn’t new rules, just documenting how the ATF has already worked for years.

imo the fact it didn’t change anything is the problem - though it did lay bare how ludicrous and subjective the criteria they use is. This is the same criteria used in a high-profile 2018 case and the Q letter. The good news is the ATF has gotten slapped in court over this before: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-suffers-rare-court-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

If you don’t believe me, ask FPC: https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1342185026989879298?s=21
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

AUCTION: SE Idaho DIY Deer or Deer/Elk Hunt by Dan-o
[Today at 03:14:20 PM]


Utah cow elk hunt by kselkhunter
[Today at 02:54:14 PM]


A lonely Job... by Loup Loup
[Today at 01:15:11 PM]


Pocket Carry by jdb
[Today at 01:04:51 PM]


Range finders & Angle Compensation by Fidelk
[Today at 11:58:48 AM]


Willapa Hills 1 Bear by hunter399
[Today at 10:55:29 AM]


Tree stand for Western Washingtn by Shannon
[Today at 08:56:36 AM]


Bearpaw Outfitters Annual July 4th Hunt Sale by bearpaw
[Today at 08:40:03 AM]


KODIAK06 2025 trail cam and personal pics thread by Boss .300 winmag
[Today at 07:53:52 AM]


Yard bucks by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 11:20:39 PM]


Yard babies by Feathernfurr
[Yesterday at 10:04:54 PM]


Seeking recommendations on a new scope by coachg
[Yesterday at 08:10:21 PM]


Sauk Unit Youth Elk Tips by high_hunter
[Yesterday at 08:06:05 PM]


Jupiter Mountain Rayonier Permit- 621 Bull Tag by HntnFsh
[Yesterday at 07:58:22 PM]


MOVED: Seekins Element 7PRC for sale by Bob33
[Yesterday at 06:57:10 PM]


3 pintails by metlhead
[Yesterday at 04:44:03 PM]


1993 Merc issues getting up on plane by Happy Gilmore
[Yesterday at 04:37:55 PM]


Unit 364 Archery Tag by buglebuster
[Yesterday at 12:16:59 PM]


In the background by zwickeyman
[Yesterday at 12:10:13 PM]


A. Cole Lockback in AEB-L and Micarta by A. Cole
[Yesterday at 09:15:34 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal