ATF to Institute Rulemaking Regarding Stabilizing Braces and Require Registration of Currently Owned Braces

[The Annoyed Man]

There is a small silver lining in this stupid ATF letter, if you can call it that......

If you are put in the position of having to register a pistol-braced lower as an SBR, without being required to pay a $200 tax stamp to do so, you’ve now got a "free" SBR and you might as well put any buttstock you want on it after it’s registered. There’ll no longer be any reason to put up with the compromises imposed by braces. All of a sudden, no hassles over LVPOs, vertical fore grips, tactical lights, weight, ........

I think that the letter is vile for refusing to state any kind of specific guidelines. It is purposely vague, and intellectually dishonest. It is also a shot across the bow of the gun community, and it's getting us all spun up just as Biden is about to take office. That’s what they want. Also, SHAME on Trump for not calling off the dogs.

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

This is probably easier to absorb for someone like me. I already have a couple of registered lowers on our trust, to which I can mount any one of 4 different uppers we have in 3 different calibers....two in 5.56, one in .300 Blk, and one in .350 Legend. If braced lowers are somehow suddenly redefined as SBRs, I don’t really need to do what I proposed above. I’d probably just use those lowers to build something 16” or longer.

But, if you don’t have that luxury, then get yourself a cheap pistol brace and convert a lower to an SBR for free. Hold them to their word.....ALL of it. And then once you’ve done that, SUE the crap out of them for having made you destroy/turn in your bumpstock instead of letting you register it for free.......ALL changes to the law, made unconstitutionally without the participation of Congress to rewrite or amend that law.

There's a lot I'd like to say, but I'm not putting it on an open forum with anti-2A people monitoring it daily.

Chas.

I’m not asking you to say what exactly it is Charles, but please tell those of us who are NRA members, who have financially supported the NRA over the years, and who keep preaching the benefits of NRA membership to others, that the NRA is doing something about this that doesn’t involve another concession of our rights, and that you will be able to disclose what that is in due time, when it won’t hurt a positive outcome for our side. We need some hope here.

[SQLGeek]

The worst part about this is that the ATF is just saying "We'll know one when we see it."

In other words, good luck!

If they're going to do this, they need to publish clear criteria. They won't of course because everyone will just scoot around it.

So with that said, anyone want to buy an unused SBA3 brace?

[extremist]

There is a small silver lining in this stupid ATF letter, if you can call it that.....

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

I like the way you think, this is a great idea.

[Beiruty]

It is an open way to register all AR too as NFA items.
If it is free, everyone would register his AR as an SBR. That is a free AR Federal registry too.
Do they require a 6-month+ background check and an optional trust??!!

SBR is no more deadly than a pistol with no brace especially at short distances where pistols are used.
What is next, binary trigger + Fiream being required to be registered as Full-Auto firearms? Or do I have to destroy my $500 device?
BTW, what happened to the bump stock suit?

[Soccerdad1995]

Does anyone else think that the timing on this is very, let me say, interesting.

It's almost as if a deep stater at ATF decided to give the Biden administration some air cover by doing this while Trump was still in office. That way if anyone cites this as an example of Biden "coming after guns" his administration can rightfully claim that this was not done on his watch.

And why the flip flop on being able to register for free vs bump stocks where that option was not available? The reason cited here is that alot of people innocently bought "offending" braces per previous ATF guidance. And that exact same thing was true for bump stocks.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is a small silver lining in this stupid ATF letter, if you can call it that......

There's a lot I'd like to say, but I'm not putting it on an open forum with anti-2A people monitoring it daily.

Chas.

I’m not asking you to say what exactly it is Charles, but please tell those of us who are NRA members, who have financially supported the NRA over the years, and who keep preaching the benefits of NRA membership to others, that the NRA is doing something about this that doesn’t involve another concession of our rights, and that you will be able to disclose what that is in due time, when it won’t hurt a positive outcome for our side. We need some hope here.

Again, I'm not going to say one word about what the NRA is doing in an open forum. Using the modifier "exactly" doesn't change the fact that I cannot and will not give any information to enemies of the Second Amendment. Also, my post was not referring to any NRA actions, so I'll go ahead and make some, but not all, observations.

1. President Trump did take action to stop this, but it was ignored. Apparently, some people on the Forum think he is King Trump, not President Trump. Sixteen Senators also attempted to rein in the BATFE, but the BATFE employees didn't care what they said either. Remember, they are federal civil servants that are virtually impossible to fire. The Supreme Court is the only authority that cannot be ignored by bureaucrats. Because of the NRA and President Trump, we now have five true conservatives we can depend upon. No, they won't get into pistol braces; their focus in far broader when it comes to the Second Amendment.

2. I've seen numerous AR pistols at ranges, but I've never seen one fired with one hand or with a "brace" attached to the forearm - not a single one. I've seen numerous videos of people shooting AR pistols from the shoulder. That provided evidence of actual practice v. theoretical use. Some of the self-proclaimed experts on YouTube do the most harm. Many are the same people who, in response to the bump-stock ruling, posted videos showing them simulating bump-stocks with rubber bands or a loose grip. Don't think these demonstrations went unnoticed by enemies of the Second Amendment.

3. I don't like the BATFE as an agency and many of its Directors and other high-ranking officials are/were people who blatantly ignored the Constitution and other legal limits on their authority. However, I've met many BATFE agents and other personnel who are fine people who do their jobs without political motivation and without violating anyone's rights. The BATFE was originally approached with the idea of a "brace" for AR pistols so disabled people (mainly veterans) could shoot. Based on this justification, pistol braces were approved. If there truly are "millions" of pistol braces in use, then a minuscule percentage are being used by disabled persons. Sure, able-bodied people could use a brace to shoot an AR pistol with one hand, or two hands without shouldering it, but I've yet to see this done. This became enough of an issue that it resulted in BATFE letters dealing with shouldering a pistol with a "brace."

It's time to be intellectually honest. Why do most people put a "brace" on an AR pistol? Stop calling a horse an equine and trying to tell everyone they are two different animals. Condemn the BATFE when they are wrong -- there is ample opportunity to do so. But if we plan to win the battle to save the Second Amendment, then our credibility is critical. If we appear to be dishonest to justices who will ultimately determine the fate of the Second Amendment, then we can lose everything, not merely pistol "braces."

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

[Rafe]

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

Man. I wish you hadn't put that idea in my head. I don't have an SBR because I've never wanted the NFA hassle and the $200 stamp. But I would like to have an SBR. I have enough spare parts lying around (buffer tubes, plain-Jane milspec triggers, pins & springs) to put together a couple of lowers and all I'd need to buy would be the cheapest brace I can find. Hm. And like you I have a few stripped lowers in the safe. 'Course, I'm going boating on Lake Conroe for Christmas, so you never know...

[Beiruty]

I got a 9MM PCC for competition with collapsible real stock. The barrel is 16", so it is a rifle. I like it a lot and how it shoots. I decided I need to convert it to a real NFA SBR and add my first noise suppressor too. It would be a real home defense 9mm weapon. 2 Stamps and all are Kosher and legal.
Does NFA registration reduce crimes?

[srothstein]

Does NFA registration reduce crimes?

There is an interesting problem with answering this question. Historically, very few weapons registered with ATF under the NFA have been used in crimes. This could be used to argue that it is not a useful tool. But we have no way of knowing what would have happened if we did not register those weapons. Prior to the passage of the law, some of the weapons were very popular with some criminals. Thus, the lack of crime involving those weapons could also be argued to show the success of the law.

I am not convinced that the law serves a useful purpose but I have to admit that I cannot prove it either way. I do not find very many incidents in crime reports of unregistered NFA firearms being used (despite the media calling everything an automatic rifle). Whether this is due to the NFA or not is debatable and there is not a lot of factual information to prove either way.

[Beiruty]

I am certain, the use of Braces are not a factor in any crime.

[extremist]

Let me ask you a question TAM. Suppose a U.S. Senator where to look you in the eye and ask, "Is it true that the majority of people who own AR pistols with braces are doing so so they can possess a short barrel rifle without going through the BATFE process?" What will be your answer? Are you going to be candid and honest, or will you dodge the question?

Chas.

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

[Flightmare]

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

The ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

[jason812]

What does intent from the millions of people who have purchased pistol braces if they are legal and the ATF said they were legal? Either we have laws or we don't. I'm beginning to think we don't.

I don't have much extra cash but I'll give the NRA a $100 if they actually get something done. If the NRA caves on this too, I'll cancel my lifetime membership.

[Syntyr]

But if they are going to play games, then we should be willing to force their own rules right down their throats. I have stripped lowers in my safe. I also have another completed lower with a pistol brace on it. I could take one of my stripped lowers right now, and put a cheap pistol brace on it so that I can register them both as SBRs for free. I have no love lost for the ATF. I think the NFA should be repealed in its entirety. But until then, you beat them at their own game.

Man. I wish you hadn't put that idea in my head. I don't have an SBR because I've never wanted the NFA hassle and the $200 stamp. But I would like to have an SBR. I have enough spare parts lying around (buffer tubes, plain-Jane milspec triggers, pins & springs) to put together a couple of lowers and all I'd need to buy would be the cheapest brace I can find. Hm. And like you I have a few stripped lowers in the safe. 'Course, I'm going boating on Lake Conroe for Christmas, so you never know...

Now we have a conundrum wrapped in an enigma... I have a few stripped lowers as well...

[srothstein]

The ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

I think you are correct about asking the congressmen about the law. And then ask them why they did not write the law properly and concisely and CLEARLY. Point out that the Constitution clearly states that Congress is SOLE legislative power in the US, and they have no authority to delegate it to anyone, especially not to an executive branch agency, as that violates the separation of powers. The whole Code of Federal Regulations is unconstitutional and should be done away with. That would force Congress to write laws that average people can understand and there is no "interpretation" of by executive agencies.

Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves.